Oral Answers to Questions

DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

British Forces (Attacks)

Greg Hands: What recent assessment he has made of Iranian military involvement in attacks on British forces overseas.

Des Browne: Elements of the Iranian regime provide munitions and training to Shi'a militia in Iraq and arms and funding to the Taliban in Afghanistan. In addition, they fund and assist armed groups in the Lebanon and in the occupied Palestinian territories. That not only poses a threat to British forces serving in operations but destabilises the security of the region. Iran can either act responsibly, cease support for terrorism and play a constructive role in Iraq or Afghanistan or face the consequences of not doing so—and it must be clear that that will mean increasing isolation.

Greg Hands: It appears that Iranian involvement in the insurgency in Iraq is, thankfully, diminishing after the recent effort of Iraqi forces supported by US ground troops, but has the Secretary of State seen any evidence of a change in tactics by Tehran and an increase in Iranian involvement in attacks on NATO forces in Afghanistan?

Des Browne: There is no evidence of such a change having taken place. The hon. Gentleman is right to recall that there has been a decrease in Iran's apparent interference in Iraq's internal affairs, which is a consequence of a number of things, including the effectiveness of Iraqi security forces against those agents and others involved in activity in southern Iraq and the growing strength of the Iraqi Government and their direct involvement with the Iranians, helping to change their behaviour. We of course keep the situation in Afghanistan under constant review, but there is no evidence of increasing interference.

David Crausby: Is my right hon. Friend completely satisfied that British naval forces carrying out legitimate boarding operations within the Gulf are prepared for aggressive attacks by Iranian forces?

Des Browne: I think that my hon. Friend might have had an opportunity to ask that question directly when members of the Select Committee recently visited that part of the world and spoke to our forces there. I am sure that the answer he would have received is that steps put in place significantly to increase the protection of our sailors in that part of the Gulf—after the regrettable incident when sailors were taken captive—are proving increasingly effective.

Bob Spink: What assessment does the Secretary of State make of the linkage between Iranian military and Iraqi militia groups, which have been trained—by the allied forces, of course—armed and put on the street to help the security forces?

Des Browne: There were at one stage some concerns that militia had infiltrated Iraqi security forces. The hon. Gentleman and others will know that when General Mohan was in charge of troops in Basra, steps were taken to ensure that the majority of recruits to the 14th division, which grew out of the 10th division of the Iraqi army, did not come from the Basra area. The fact that the troops could not be intimidated may well account for the dramatic effect of the deployment of the 14th division to Basra.

Helicopters

Nicholas Winterton: What recent assessment he has made of the availability of helicopters for deployment in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Andrew Selous: If he will increase the number of helicopters available for the use of UK troops in Afghanistan.

Des Browne: In my written statement on 20 May, I set out in great detail the considerable efforts we are making on this issue. We have increased helicopter flying hours in Afghanistan by over a third since March last year, including uplifts to Chinook and Apache hours; we have deployed upgraded Sea King helicopters there as well, and we are converting eight Chinook helicopters to a support role. The Merlin helicopter is deployed to Iraq; the six additional Merlin aircraft that we procured from Denmark will augment our fleet by 25 per cent.

Nicholas Winterton: Helicopters are essential for our hugely important operations in Afghanistan, and there is a shortage of them. I recognise that some eight Chinooks, six Danish Merlins and the upgraded Sea Kings with Carson blades are on track to Afghanistan, but has the Ministry of Defence indicated to any of our armed services its willingness to procure light helicopters on their behalf? If so, what response has it had?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman will know that over and above the specific steps that we are taking in this coalition operation, others among our allies are taking steps. For completeness, the House should know that to support operations in Afghanistan, the Canadians—I spoke to their Defence Minister recently—have bought six additional Chinooks and eight Griffin helicopters. In the interim, while fitting out those Chinooks for deployment, they are leasing eight Mi-17s. Therefore, the number of frames, and consequently the hours available, will be subject to a significant uplift in Afghanistan.
	The hon. Gentleman is right that light helicopters play an important operational role, particularly for surveillance purposes, although they can be used for other purposes. The helicopter that we currently use is known as the Lynx helicopter, and he will know that that does not perform most efficiently in the environment of Afghanistan. We look to our allies for such support, but for that surveillance role we also use the heavier Sea King helicopter, which, when rebladed, performs well in that environment.

Andrew Selous: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what lessons the Government have learned from their decision in 2004 to cut £1.4 billion from the helicopter budget, so that Parliament is never again asked to send British troops into combat without the necessary helicopter support? Will the situation get better across all three services over the next three years?

Des Browne: I am pleased to tell the House that over the next 10 years the Ministry of Defence intends to invest some £6 billion to replace and enhance our helicopters. Over the same period, we will also try to reduce the maintenance burden. That is a significant investment, which addresses directly the hon. Gentleman's point.

David Taylor: In 2004, the Public Accounts Committee described the acquisition of the eight Chinook mark 3 helicopters for £259 million as one of the worst examples of equipment procurement it had ever seen. Since then, we have seen the reversion project and the night enhancement package, which will push the total cost well above £500 million. Will the Secretary of State tell us what lessons have been learned from the whole saga? When will we see the eight Chinook mark 3 helicopters fully operational in Afghanistan and elsewhere?

Des Browne: The work done on the Chinook helicopters is on track and on budget. The work having been completed, it is intended that the first helicopter will be released early in 2009, and the rest will become available progressively thereafter. They will enhance our existing fleet of Chinook helicopters, and my written statement to the House on 20 May set out the detail of how we intend to deploy them.
	My hon. Friend asks what lessons have been learned. The lesson that should be learned is not to overcomplicate our procurement. We did not order the helicopters, but when they were delivered they were of such complexity that they could not be certificated as safe to fly under the then regulations. After valiant attempts to overcome that, when I became Secretary of State I took the decision that they would be better converted to mark 2 Chinooks. That was the right decision, as subsequent reports have confirmed.

Douglas Carswell: Given the shortage of helicopters in Afghanistan, does the Secretary of State think that it was wise to award a £1 billion contract to build the Future Lynx helicopters at twice the cost of the alternatives—and they will not be ready for years—and without a full competitive tender process?

Des Browne: I was not involved in the detail of the awarding of that contract, so I am not in a position to respond to him on the detail of the negotiations in that regard. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) mentioned the importance of light helicopters in the battlefield, and the answer lies in our need for proper surveillance of battlefield circumstances. As in every aspect of the equipment that we use, our experience in the battlefield environment teaches us all sorts of lessons, and we have learned a lot in Afghanistan, particularly about the use of other forms of intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance. The challenges increase as the technology improves.

David Laws: I thank the Secretary of State for meeting me two weeks ago to discuss the Future Lynx order. He will be aware of the concern of many of my constituents about the media speculation surrounding the order. In the light of that, will he be in a position to give a clear green light to the order, which was signed two years ago, before the August holiday period begins?

Des Browne: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman. I understand his constituency interest in the matter, as well as his broader interest. As he knows, the affordability of our forward programme is being examined in the context of equipment. On many other occasions at the Dispatch Box I have turned down invitations to salami-slice every element, and I do not intend to do otherwise today. When I am ready to make any announcements, I will make them.

Nicholas Soames: Has the right hon. Gentleman given any thought to the substitution of civilian helicopters to carry out conventional logistics tasks, so that more military helicopters can be freed up to go to Afghanistan?

Des Browne: I have done just that. As I believe the hon. Gentleman knows, we have entered into a contract in Afghanistan with a civilian supplier. As a result we are on track to move some 300 metric tonnes of supplies around Afghanistan, thus freeing up Chinook time, and time for the necessary deployment of attack helicopters to support the Chinooks. The arrangement has been very successful, and I am sure that we can build on it.

Nick Harvey: Given the shortage of military helicopters, why have the Government decided to withdraw the Gazelle helicopter from service some nine years before its planned out-of-service date in 2018? According to answers that the Secretary of State has given me within the past few months, it has clearly proved the most reliable of all our military helicopters. In view of the essential part that it plays in our national security strategy, is there not a danger that more pressure will be put on the helicopters that we need in Afghanistan and Iraq—although the Gazelle has not been used in Iraq since the early days? Will not its withdrawal leave a gap in our helicopter capacity, and how will the Secretary of State fill that gap without putting more pressure on our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Des Browne: Thankfully, the answer to the hon. Gentleman's lengthy question is quite short. According to military advice, which I have accepted, the Gazelle is not deployable in either of those theatres.

Nick Harvey: I never said it was.

Des Browne: The fact that we cannot deploy it explains why it would not address our shortage in those theatres.

Gerald Howarth: The Lynx helicopters that are in service with the Army and the Royal Navy are pretty well at the end of their viable lives, much like the Prime Minister's own political position. When will the Prime Minister note the anger of people such as Lieutenant-Colonel Stuart Tootal, who recently resigned from the Army after commanding the Paras in Helmand? When will the Prime Minister stop dithering, and authorise the Secretary of State to make a decision on the 70 Future Lynx aircraft which could make a real difference to our hard-pressed troops? Will the Secretary of State confirm that if they are not ordered, he will find himself with 150 Army helicopters going out of service in 2012 and nothing with which to replace them? What will he say to people who are trying to take up the role vacated by Stuart Tootal?

Des Browne: I come to the Dispatch Box every week in the hope that the jokes will get better, but they do not improve.
	The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue: how can we provide the level of surveillance that we will need for the operational environment in the future? I have already said that helicopters have a role to play, but there are other ways of providing that surveillance, of which the hon. Gentleman is aware. Indeed, we have discussed them before.
	I heard Lieutenant-Colonel Tootal speaking on the radio this morning, and read with care the interview with him that was published over the weekend. He was deployed in Afghanistan and performed a very professional and worthwhile job there with 3 Para, which he commanded. They were very brave, and had a significant effect on the Taliban. However, as Lieutenant-Colonel Tootal was the first to recognise this morning, that was in 2006. There has been considerable investment since then, particularly in helicopters. Lieutenant-Colonel Tootal recognised that; it is a pity that the hon. Gentleman does not.

Defence Technical Academy

John Smith: What progress is being made on the defence technical academy, St. Athan; and if he will make a statement.

Bob Ainsworth: The Department continues to work constructively with the Metrix consortium on a range of issues on defence training review package 1 to achieve an affordable, value-for-money, acceptable and deliverable project. Negotiations with Metrix are continuing and both parties are working hard to drive down costs and obtain maximum value for money for the taxpayer.

John Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he take this opportunity to pay tribute to the integrated project team, Metrix and the Welsh Assembly Government for the way in which they are progressing this £12 billion private finance initiative, and especially their involvement of the local community in the planning and design stage, which has already resulted in a number of major improvements? Does he agree that, with a project of the scale, complexity and importance to the armed forces of this technical academy, it is important that we get it right and do not rush it?

Bob Ainsworth: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. As part of the planning process, we and Metrix are committed to an ongoing programme of consultation with the local community in Wales. We have involved the community in the redevelopment of St. Athan. That is a priority, and local comments will have a direct impact on how the details of any plans evolve. Public consultation exhibitions will take place—and, as my hon. Friend is aware, some are taking place at present.

James Arbuthnot: But while it is important not to rush it, as the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith) says, the defence training review does seem to be taking longer to come to signature than everybody had thought. In Bordon in my constituency, this is a very important matter because the regeneration of the town depends on everybody having a clear idea of the Ministry of Defence's intentions. Are there any problems with the sale of MOD land that we need to be aware of? What is going on?

Bob Ainsworth: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is taking longer than is ideal. The financial appraisals have thrown up some difficult issues, and we are working them through with a view to taking a decision before the end of the year.

Chris Bryant: The Minister will know that there is a warm welcome for this project not only in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith), but across the whole of south Wales. There are people in my constituency who formerly worked at St. Athan and who are looking forward to the prospect of working there again in the near future, and many of them have important skills. Will the Minister confirm that none of the delay that has so far occurred has been because any of the services is reluctant to work with the other services, because where all the services work together in providing training they can significantly add value?

Bob Ainsworth: The St. Athan proposal added significant value to training in the whole area that was covered by package 1, and that was why it was considered to be value for money. That is not the reason for any hold-up. We are getting total co-operation from within the services, and also from the local community in Wales. There are affordability issues, however, which we are trying to work through with Metrix. That has caused some delay, but we are still doing our best to bring this to a good conclusion.

Adam Price: This project was announced with considerable fanfare in the run-up to the Assembly elections, but, 18 months on, there is still no signed contract. We already have one empty aircraft hangar in the area that the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith) serves as a result of a previous MOD U-turn. Does the Minister understand that there is fear in the community that the Government may be backtracking on the scale of the project, and can he reassure it that there is no truth in that?

Bob Ainsworth: All I will say to the hon. Gentleman is that he and his nationalist colleagues ought to reflect upon the size of the defence training capability in Scotland and Wales were they to get their way and form Governments in either of those places.

Robert Walter: There are obviously serious difficulties with package 1, and it is clear that package 2 will never get off the ground. Does that not challenge the financial viability of the whole scheme, and has the Minister considered looking again at some of the investment the MOD has already made in my constituency at Blandford in the Defence College of Communications and Information Systems—more than £100 million over the past eight years—and at not sticking with the original defence training review plan, which was to locate communications and information systems training at Blandford?

Bob Ainsworth: We have announced a change in policy on package 2. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the synergies and, thus, the advantages in bringing people together, in the package 2 area were never as strong as those in package 1, so we are examining alternative solutions in those areas. Package 1 remains the best way of enhancing defence training, and we are committed to working through these problems and trying to deliver the proposal for St. Athan.

Troops (Telephone Packages)

Peter Soulsby: What recent changes have been made to the telephone package offered to troops serving overseas.

Derek Twigg: Personnel serving on eligible operations for two months or more are entitled to 30 minutes of free telephone time per week to any location worldwide, including mobile telephones. Earlier this month, we increased the allowance for personnel deployed for nine months to one hour, and personnel deployed on 12-month tours are entitled to two hours per week. We have also rationalised charges for additional call time to a flat rate of 11p per minute.

Peter Soulsby: I thank my hon. Friend for that very positive response and for the allowance increases that have been announced. He will be aware of their importance, not only to the troops, but to their families and friends back here in the United Kingdom. May I encourage him to assure us that he will continue to keep this matter under review? He will be aware of the importance of communication, be it postal or telephone, to the troops and their families and friends, so may I suggest that at some future point he could be even more generous than he has been?

Derek Twigg: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, we always keep these things under review. Whenever I visit Iraq or Afghanistan, I ensure that I talk to service personnel about the welfare package to get their views, and I do the same when I see families back in the UK and elsewhere.

Robert Key: May I give credit where it is due to the communications teams in Her Majesty's forces, especially the Army, for the substantial improvement in the welfare package, particularly on communication with families? I used to receive regular complaints from my constituents about that, but I have not received any such complaint for a long time. Credit should be given for the way in which free e-mails are available—free webcams are usually available too—for the fantastic job that the British Forces Broadcasting Service is doing and for the fact that newspapers are often available in the major centres in Iraq and Afghanistan within 24 hours of their publication in London.

Derek Twigg: I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

David Davies: Nevertheless, some constituents serving in the armed forces —[Interruption.] I shall have to put this one slightly differently. Some constituents, including some of mine, who are serving in Helmand province complain that when they have tried to use the telephone helpline to find out about problems accessing their wages—money to which they are entitled—they have been told that that time ought to come out of their time for telephoning relatives. Does the Minister agree that anyone who has a legitimate complaint to the forces helpline that deals with wages should be able to access that without it cutting into other telephone time?

Derek Twigg: We are working very hard to ensure that our armed forces personnel access such services. We are aware of some of the difficulties—I assume that the hon. Gentleman is talking about the Joint Personnel Administration—and we keep them under review. As I have said, we are making improvements all the time.

Armed Forces (Recruitment and Retention)

Robert Smith: What steps he is taking to improve recruitment, retention and morale within the armed forces.

Anne McIntosh: What recent representations he has received on levels of recruitment and retention in the armed forces.

Bob Ainsworth: The Ministry of Defence receives many representations from Members of this House and elsewhere on the important subjects of recruitment, retention and morale in the armed forces. Last week we published the service personnel Command Paper, which is an unprecedented attempt to remove the disadvantage associated with service life and complements a raft of previous initiatives, such as enhancements to the deployed welfare package, and retention and commitment bonuses.

Robert Smith: The Minister will recognise that the morale, professionalism and bravery of our armed forces have been built up over generations. I welcome the fact that the Government, as the custodian of that inheritance, have proposed the measures in the Command Paper, which will go some way in helping to address morale. Does he recognise that the crucial thing that the Government must confront is the overstretch of our armed forces? To that end, when will he realise that the forces need to be withdrawn from Iraq and that their efforts need to be concentrated in Afghanistan, where there remains a major job to do?

Bob Ainsworth: We recognise that problem and the impact of service life on family life and harmony, and attempts to ensure that we stay within harmony guidelines are at the forefront for all of the services all of the time. We will, as the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have said repeatedly, leave Iraq when the conditions are right, when the job is done, and when Iraqi security forces are capable of taking over and protecting the democratic Government of Iraq. Hopefully, that will be sooner rather than later, but it has to be conditions-based, not based on some artificial timeline that the Liberal Democrats keep asking for.

Anne McIntosh: I welcome the Command Paper, which I believe will make some changes, but is the Minister aware that at any one time there are between 3,000 and 4,000 people living in the Vale of York who work on the four military bases? One issue that the Command Paper does not deal with, concerning not just those in the military schools on the bases but those who go into normal education, is that it takes three to six months for the children of servicemen and women to settle in, which may be reflected in poorer results, both for them and for the school, and lead some servicemen and women to consider their long-term future with the Army? Will he please review that position now?

Bob Ainsworth: There is a clear commitment in the Command Paper to look at the disadvantage in terms of school placements that is sometimes caused to the armed forces by the way in which we oblige them to work. We will work with the adjudicator and the admissions code to identify any disadvantage and to deal with it. I agree that it is essential that we try to remove those annoyances, which is why the commitment is in the Command Paper. I will point out the chapter to the hon. Lady if she wishes after questions.

Kevan Jones: My right hon. Friend will know that the Defence Committee has just concluded a report on retention and recruitment in Her Majesty's armed forces, and we have all been impressed by the opportunities in jobs, education and training that all three services give young men and women. In the light of that, does he agree that former senior members of the armed forces should comment on current situations rather than on some of the historical nonsense that we have heard over the past few days?

Bob Ainsworth: My hon. Friend points out a problem, which is that people talk from their own experiences, which are not necessarily up to date, about force protection as provided in the operational theatre, the welfare package or other packages and measures that we have tried to introduce to assist our armed forces. One would hope that they made themselves aware of recent developments before they comment on them.

Lindsay Hoyle: My right hon. Friend must be aware that the big issue with recruitment is that we can do better if we have more regiments based in the north-west instead of reducing them, and that the best way of ensuring better retention is to stop the revolving door of going out to theatre, coming back and going straight back out. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we could extend the period in the UK between periods in theatre, we would have better morale and retention?

Bob Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is an honorary colonel in a north-west-based regiment, so I can understand his bias in that regard. We have tried to address to the maximum degree possible the harmony situation, and the breaches of harmony guidelines in the Army have come down from 15 per cent. to around 12 per cent. in the last year, although we must continue those efforts. My hon. Friend is right that if we are sending people out to theatre more often than not, that will have a bearing on morale. However, he should bear it in mind that there are some in our armed forces who are more than happy to deploy as often as they do, and some would seek to deploy more often than we think is good for them.

Mark Lancaster: One way in which the Government have tried to combat falling numbers in the Army is by increasing recruitment from Commonwealth countries. Unfortunately, the G1 or welfare package has not kept pace. For example, if a Fijian soldier is given compassionate leave he is returned only to the UK and is forced to fund his own travel back to Fiji, or, invariably, his own unit will have to do so. Will the Minister look at this area to ensure that there is equity across the board for all soldiers?

Bob Ainsworth: There are a number of measures in the Command Paper. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the chapters to do with foreign and Commonwealth recruits to our armed forces and our attempts to deal with some of the disparities in treatment and to remove some of the botheration from them, their families and their partners. There are measures that we have taken. If he wants to take up other measures with me, I am prepared to look at them and to talk to him about them.

Laura Moffatt: Many Members of this House have concerns and want improved recruitment and retention in the reserve forces and the Regular Army. I am delighted to say that the all-party group on reserve forces launched a report earlier today—I am pleased that the Minister responsible for reserve forces was able to receive that report. May we be assured that that report will be taken seriously? Some excellent work is going on, particularly in the Royal Naval Reserve air branch, and the report is—we hope—our contribution to the excellent Command Paper and to ensuring that we have the best recruitment and retention in our armed forces.

Bob Ainsworth: My hon. Friend will know that, separate from the Command Paper, we are part way through a review of the reserve forces. It is not expected to complete before the end of the year. Of course, her comments and those of the all-party group will be taken on board. I know that the group is being consulted throughout that process.

Julian Lewis: The Minister's hon. and indeed gallant Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) is undoubtedly right that overstretch is primarily the greatest problem. What effect does the Minister think it has on the recruitment, retention and particularly morale of soldiers, sailors and airmen to know that, if the head of their service speaks out in favour of better conditions for them, he can forget about ever becoming Chief of the Defence Staff?

Bob Ainsworth: If the hon. Gentleman were speaking the truth, that would be a very serious matter indeed. I see no facts to support the allegations made by the hon. Gentleman. The Chief of the Defence Staff remains in post and will remain in post. He is doing a very good job and steering us through the difficult times that confront our armed forces at present.

Afghanistan

David Evennett: What arrangements have been made to ensure the availability of adequate supplies of potable water in Afghanistan for troops.

Derek Twigg: The UK has its own water treatment and bottling plant at Camp Bastion, producing significant amounts of drinking water per day from local sources. That water is transported onward to troops in operational locations. In addition, a number of forward operating bases are equipped with their own boreholes. Soldiers are also equipped with water purification tablets to treat local water if necessary when out on patrol.

David Evennett: I thank the Minister for his response. Much has been made of the equipment shortages besetting our armed forces in Afghanistan, and rightly so. Do the Minister and the Secretary of State not agree that the ability to provide adequate supplies of water to service personnel operating in desert conditions is the most basic responsibility and should be taken very seriously by the Government?

Derek Twigg: I give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that of course that is taken very seriously. It is essential that we have a proper water supply. In fact, when the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) raised these matters with me, I checked up with our people and could find no evidence that people were denied water or were unable to access water. We take the matter very seriously indeed.

Andrew Murrison: The Prime Minister is something of an authority on bottling, so he is no doubt aware that before the commencement of bottling at Camp Bastion the cost of producing a litre of water in theatre was 70p. It is now 22p and is projected to fall to 10p. Geographically displaced bottling plants have the capacity to resolve the recent problems that troops in Afghanistan have had with potable water—an inexcusable failure in the supply chain. I know the Minister, and he is no bottler. What is he doing to ensure that our men and women have a reliable supply of fresh water without having to endure the ill effects of water purification tablets?

Derek Twigg: It is absolutely a priority for the Government, the Ministry of Defence and the ministerial team to ensure that our people have the water supply they need. Their accessibility to water is very important and we continue to keep the matter under review to ensure that they have a water supply. As I said in my original answer, there is a bottling plant at Camp Bastion that works very well.

Reserve Forces

Phil Wilson: What progress has been made on the strategic review of the UK's reserve forces; and if he will make a statement.

Bob Ainsworth: The strategic review of reserves work is now moving from research to analysis, returning to those consulted where necessary to test assumptions and to clarify detail. A second round of consultation workshops will be run in September, with delivery of the report due later this year.

Phil Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the 102nd Battalion the Royal Electrical Mechanical Engineers, under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Jock Murdoch? The REME battalion is based in Newton Aycliffe in my constituency, as is the 201st Northern Field Hospital and the 124th Recovery Company. REME and the other units have undertaken courageous duties in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Territorial Army does a magnificent job in the most dangerous of circumstances?

Bob Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is right. We should never underestimate the contribution that is being made by our reserve forces to our current operations, as has been made throughout the 100 years of the TA. The reserves review is to ensure that they remain as relevant to the armed forces over the next 100 years as they are at present and have been over the past 100 years.

Julian Brazier: I join the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) both in thanking the Under-Secretary for attending our launch this morning and in congratulating the MOD reserves team on the way in which they are conducting the study. May I put it to Ministers that when it comes to making decisions they need to bear two things in mind? First, the volunteer reserves are working desperately hard and their numbers, too, are very much under pressure from overstretch. Secondly, our English-speaking cousins—America, Canada and Australia—all prove more imaginative than us in the number of ways they find to make good use of reservists, of whom helicopter crews are just one example.

Bob Ainsworth: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman that we have to look all the time at how to improve the contribution that the reserves can make and that we have to be imaginative about exploring the possibilities. However, we must always be aware that those people are volunteers, so we have to balance that with the offer we actually make those individuals if it is to be sustainable over time. I am convinced—as I know is the hon. Gentleman—that we can get far more from our reserves than we do at present and that we may be able to offer them better opportunities and training and a more enjoyable experience.

Armed Forces (Recruitment and Retention)

Mark Hunter: What recent steps he has taken to improve recruitment, retention and morale in the armed forces.

Bob Ainsworth: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Members for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) and for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh).

Mark Hunter: I make no apology for returning to this hugely important issue, particularly in light of the MOD's recent survey of servicemen and women, which found that up to 59 per cent. of Army personnel are now more likely to leave because of the level of operational commitments and overstretch. Although the steps the Government have already announced are to be welcomed, can the Minister tell the House a little more about what they will do specifically to tackle the twin problems of overstretch and frequency of tours?

Bob Ainsworth: As I said in the earlier exchanges, by managing our forces as well as possible given the present calls on them, we have reduced—or improved—the harmony gap in the Army and the other services. In terms of morale, retention and recruitment, the measures in the Command Paper will be significant. For example, if young people look not only at the educational opportunities they will have while in service but at the fact that if they give six years of service to the armed forces we will pay for their qualifications at A-level, or if they are already there, at foundation degree or degree course level, they will see that it is a considerable offer. When it is combined with the retention bonuses and the commitment bonuses paid across the forces—eight years' service brings a £15,000 commitment bonus—I think we shall be able to continue to recruit good-quality people to our armed forces in the years to come.

Gordon Prentice: I know that we have always recruited soldiers and sailors from the Commonwealth, but we are relying on those countries increasingly. Is there an upper limit on the number of people whom we take from Commonwealth countries?

Bob Ainsworth: There has been an increase in soldiers from foreign and Commonwealth countries in recent years, as my hon. Friend knows, but to say that we are totally reliant on them is wrong. We have traditionally recruited from many parts of the world, including parts of Africa and Fiji, and there are the Gurkha regiments, too. We are talking about long and historic connections with our armed forces, and I do not think that anybody thinks that we ought to pull back from them.

Topical Questions

David Evennett: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Des Browne: As Secretary of State for Defence, my departmental responsibilities are: to make and execute defence policy; to provide the armed forces with the capabilities that they need to achieve success in the military tasks in which they are engaged at home and abroad; and to ensure that they are ready to respond to tasks that might arise in the future.

David Evennett: I thank the Secretary of State for that response. According to Government figures, operations in Iraq in 2006-07 cost £956 million, while operations in Afghanistan cost £738 million. Will he explain why that is, given that there is a much larger troop presence, and much more troop activity, in Afghanistan?

Des Browne: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is simply that that is what we needed to spend. The complexity of the two operational environments is such that comparisons of that sort cannot be drawn simply from the figures. I suggest that he avail himself of the opportunity to visit one or both of them. When he sees that there are some similarities between them, but also significant differences, he will understand why such a comparison cannot be drawn.

Mark Hunter: In view of the recent tragic deaths involving personnel in Snatch Land Rovers, including the death of the first female British soldier to be killed in Afghanistan, and the coroner's comments that the deaths could have been avoided if the protection of armed vehicles had been improved, will the Secretary of State tell us what precise measures have been taken to ensure that the coroner's advice is taken on board and followed, so that we avoid future unnecessary deaths?

Des Browne: I have answered questions relating to vehicles at the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, and indeed in debates we have gone into the subject at some length and in some depth, so I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government's responsibility is to provide operational commanders with a suite of vehicles that cover all operational requirements. I am sure that he will accept that. Consistently, military commanders are of the view that Snatch Land Rovers perform a necessary function in the operational theatre because, in part, the security of our troops there is related to how they present themselves to the communities in which they operate. That means balancing the risk of not having the protection that other vehicles, such as the Mastiff, may provide, against factors such as flexibility, speed of movement and presentation.
	Every single day, I spend time with people in the Ministry of Defence looking at how we can enhance and improve the choice, and how we can improve protection. I stand by my record, and the record of my ministerial team in the MOD since I have been in charge. We have considerably improved investment in the vehicles that we have been able to deploy, but there is more to do. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me time to identify where the vehicles in question are, to equip them and to deploy them, I am sure that he will see them in the operational theatre in the medium term.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: In Portsmouth we have been celebrating the signing of the aircraft carrier contract, which will secure not only the future of Portsmouth naval base, but high-quality manufacturing jobs in our area for many years to come. Will my right hon. Friend carry on the good practice of interdepartmental working, which he started with the Command Paper, by working with the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills to ensure that young people in our area take advantage of the apprenticeships on offer at this joint venture? In that way, we will also keep the skills base for many years to come.

Bob Ainsworth: Of course; that applies across the entire industrial estate. My hon. Friend made a point about the skills that there will potentially be in Portsmouth for generations to come. They have to be exploited, but we cannot do that on our own in the MOD. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to work with other Departments to do so.

Liam Fox: To go back to the point that the Secretary of State made a moment ago, I should say that Snatch Land Rovers do have flexibility, and commanders appreciate that. However, the risk to our troops is getting ever greater. Can the Secretary of State expand on his previous answer and tell us what alternatives the Government have already considered to replace the Snatch Land Rover? What might the estimated costs of such a programme be and does he expect the full cost to be carried by the Treasury reserve?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman is aware that we have approved more than £3.6 billion of urgent operational requirements for Iraq and Afghanistan, and the majority of those have related to force protection, including the requirement for protected vehicles. From his own experience in the operational theatre and from talking to military commanders, he will be aware of how welcome the Mastiff vehicle, among others, has been in the operational theatre. Protected vehicles, armour, electronic counter-measures and body armour are all part of the complex suite of capabilities that we need to protect our people in theatre. Commanders now in the operational theatre are extremely positive about the equipment that they have.
	However, all vehicles, including the Mastiff, have their vulnerabilities; no vehicle can completely guarantee protection, which is derived from a combination of factors. However, we have a range of vehicles now. There is a role for the Snatch, the Viking, the Land Rover, the Jackal and the Mastiff. There is also a role for the Ridgback vehicle—the 4x4 vehicle that we are in the process of procuring, up-armouring and completely fitting out. That investment is being supported by the reserve. However, there is also, of course, a role for the MOD to look forward at how it purchases and protects vehicles for the long term. That has to be part of the thinking in respect of the ongoing equipment programme.

Liam Fox: On 8 July, the Secretary of State told the House:
	"The MOD does not make provision for the net additional cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan—this is recovered from the Treasury Reserve."—[ Official Report, 8 July 2008; Vol. 478, c. 1458W.]
	However, is it not true that when procurement through urgent operational requirements reaches £900 million, 50 per cent. of the cost is directly carried by the MOD? This year, with troops active in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with fuel costs soaring, the MOD will be forced to cut £400 million from its own budget. What sort of crazy agreement penalises the military when they get new equipment and cuts the core budget in the middle of two wars? That arrangement is not the Treasury reserve carrying the burden of Afghanistan, but a guarantee to bleed the military dry over time.

Des Browne: I read in my copy of  The Times this morning that the hon. Gentleman was threatening to grill me about the increase in the fuel bill.  [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says, "Don't believe what you read in the papers." I have often given him that advice, including when he has briefed the papers to report what was being reported. The fact is that I did not recognise the detail that had informed the story in  The Times.  [Interruption.] I say to the hon. Gentleman that the total cost of fuel last year for the MOD was about a quarter of what has been suggested. If he is relying on the information in  The Times, he is misinformed. The agreement to which he refers, which is reported and transparent, is designed to get the balance right between long-term investment and urgent operational requirements. I have never been refused any request that I have made to the Treasury for urgent operational requirements, and I do not expect that I ever will be.

Andrew MacKinlay: May I refer the Secretary of State to the parliamentary question that I tabled on 13 November 2007 asking what his Department intended to do to commemorate the rather special 90th anniversary this year of the armistice? The Secretary of State, his Minister of State and the junior Minister have always promised to write to me, but we are now about to go on parliamentary recess. They do not only need to write to me—they need to tell the world what we are going to do. Will they make a statement to tell us how we are going to mark this very important social, political, military and legal anniversary, in which many schoolchildren, students and veterans are very interested?

Derek Twigg: I assure my hon. Friend that I will keep him up to date, as I have on a regular basis. The last thing that I said to him was that there would be a ceremony at the Cenotaph for the 90th anniversary. I have also been in discussions with my French counterpart about what might happen in France. I assure my hon. Friend that as soon as I have more details I will write to him with them.

James Gray: What could be more topical than the historic welcome that Parliament as a whole is about to offer 4 Mechanised Brigade as it marches through Carriage Gates this afternoon? Does the Secretary of State agree that your presence, Mr. Speaker, at 3.45 pm at the North Door of Westminster Hall is symbolic of the pride and gratitude that the entire nation feels for the fantastic job that 4 Mech Brigade has done in Iraq?

Des Browne: I had the privilege of visiting 4 Mech Brigade twice when it was deployed in Iraq. No words will be sufficient to recognise the contribution that it has made to the improvement in the situation for the Iraqi people, particularly in the city of Basra and the wider province. It is a small thing for those of us in this House to welcome the brigade here, to spend some time with the soldiers and to say thank you. I am delighted, Mr. Speaker, that you have given permission—I am sure that that was easy to do—for them to march through Carriage Gates. I am even more delighted that you can be there to welcome them on behalf of us all.

Michael Jack: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the discussions of senior officers in the RAF and the MOD about the possible sale of some tranche 1 Eurofighter aircraft to help to fund tranche 3 are continuing? Will he put us out of our misery and tell us when he is going to make an announcement on this vital order for BAE Systems in my constituency?

Bob Ainsworth: As has already been reported to the House, an equipment review is going on in the MOD. That is designed to inform the decisions of the next—2009—planning round. The issues that the right hon. Gentleman talks about are part of that review, along with a lot of other things.

Ann Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the success or otherwise of recruitment from ethnic minorities? I am thinking specifically of the Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities in the north of England, where there are high levels of unemployment.

Bob Ainsworth: We are making some progress on recruitment among ethnic minorities, but not nearly as much as we would want. To be frank with the House, we are still behind on the targets that we have set ourselves. However, we are moving in the right direction, albeit at a slower pace than I, or my hon. Friend, would want. How exactly we go about placing ourselves well among some of our ethnic minority communities needs constant thought. If she has any ideas that she wants to feed into that process, they would be most welcome to me and to my ministerial colleagues.

Peter Bone: The former commander of 3 Para, Lieutenant-Colonel Stuart Tootal, recently said:
	"We had seven Chinooks for a battle group of 1,200; now there are only eight Chinooks for four battle groups. If you're not flying you're driving, and if you're driving when you should be flying you're vulnerable to roadside bombs...we don't have enough helicopters."
	Does the Secretary of State agree?

Des Browne: We addressed this question earlier. As I have made plain, including in my written statement to the House, the number of helicopter hours and the availability of helicopters have increased significantly—by 30 per cent.—and we are taking further steps to increase the fleets from which we will deploy aircraft into Afghanistan. In addition, we are part of a coalition, and the Canadians have taken steps as a consequence of their review to buy six additional Chinooks and eight Griffins, and they are leasing eight Mi-17s in the short term.
	The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that, in co-operation with France, we have engaged in an initiative with the European Union and NATO to increase the deployability of the many hundreds of helicopters that many of our allies have but which are not deployable, either because their crews are not skilled enough to fly them in the environment or because they are not suitably equipped to provide the maximum amount of safety. Those things are going on all the time; the problem is that it takes time to get from where we are to a point where we have further deployable equipment in the operational theatre. Every single day, however, we make a step in the right direction.

John Baron: Any escalation in the tension between Iran and Israel would have implications for our troops in the region. There has been recent talk of Israel taking military action unilaterally. What would be the position of the British Government if that were to occur?

Des Browne: The Israeli Government's position is four-square with that of the international community in the preponderance of activity in trying to deal with the Iranian challenge across the board, in terms of the diplomatic effort. Where some encouragement of the Iranians has been needed, we have all gone to the United Nations. We have significant numbers of troops deployed in the region, and other assets there. We have contingencies for almost any eventuality, in terms of the protection of our troops and others in the region.

Philip Davies: The UK defence industry employs 310,000 highly skilled workers and it won exports of about £10 billion last year, but the Prime Minister chose to snub the Farnborough air show. Did the Secretary of State advise him not to attend?

Des Browne: The Government were well represented at the Farnborough air show. A number of Cabinet Ministers were there; indeed, when I attended there were at least three other Ministers present. I heard no complaint from those who were at the Farnborough air show, exhibiting or engaged— [I nterruption. ] I heard no complaint from any of those who were there that they had not got the support that they expected from the Government. On the contrary, I consistently heard praise for those in the Government—in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and my Department in particular—who had supported them to win those orders, which created the jobs that the hon. Gentleman identified.

Welfare Reform

James Purnell: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Government's Green Paper, "No one written off: reforming welfare to reward responsibility".
	The welfare state is a vital part of our country. We take pride in it. It is how we come together as a nation to support those who are vulnerable and in need of help. But our welfare system has not always kept pace with the changes in our society. In preserving some of the structures inherited from its founders, we have neglected their principles. William Beveridge's contract for welfare had three founding ideas, the first of which was that revolutionary times called for revolution, not patching, and the second was that welfare was about more than just income. He wanted to topple not just want, but the other four giants of disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness too. These became the defining issues for the Attlee Government and inspired that Administration's creation of the welfare state.
	However, over time, Beveridge's third principle—that the system of social security should not stifle incentive, opportunity and responsibility—was perhaps lost. The purpose of the welfare state was to help people in need today so that they could reduce their need tomorrow. From the 1960s onwards, that principle was eroded. The nadir came in the 1980s, when all conditions were removed from unemployment benefit and unemployment rose to more than 3 million—much higher than it needed to do.
	In 1997, we inherited an essentially passive welfare state. Since then, we have been turning it into an active one. The Green Paper completes that transformation. It is based on the marriage of two simple ideas: more support and more responsibility—the root of a fair system for claimants and the taxpayer. It aims to meet five main goals.
	First, the Green Paper aims to end the idea that there is a choice between claiming and working. Instead, from now on, the longer people claim, the more we will expect in return. At three months and six months, claimants will intensify their job search and have to comply with a back-to-work action plan. After a year, they will be transferred to an outside provider, who will be paid by results. Claimants will have to work for their benefits for at least four weeks—longer if the provider requires it. For the 2 per cent. whom we anticipate to be still out of work after two years, we will explore mandatory full-time work programmes and other approaches, such as daily signing.
	We will give our advisers the power to use full-time work as a sanction at any stage of a claim for those who abuse the system. We will improve treatment for those who have a problem with crack cocaine and opiates, but require them to take up that support. We know that our support works, but we also know that conditionality works. By getting more people to take up the support, we can increase employment and reduce poverty.
	When we introduced the new deal, we started to end the idea that people could claim benefits indefinitely when work was available. As long-term youth claimant unemployment fell by nearly 80 per cent., we extended that principle to other workers. Consequently, we now have more people in work than ever. Claimant unemployment has been halved, saving £5 billion a year. Nine out of 10 people leave jobseeker's allowance within 12 months of claiming.
	Work works, and it is only fair that we make sure that a life on benefits is not an option. The second goal is to ensure that no one is written off. In 1979, around 700,000 people were on incapacity benefits. By 1997, the total had risen to 2.5 million and was going up by 50,000 every year. We have reversed that trend, and the number on IB is the lowest that it has been for eight years. Annually, nearly 400,000 fewer people are flowing on to IB compared with 1997.
	We have created the Pathways to Work programme, which helps people improve their health, adapt to their condition, rebuild their confidence and look for work. We know that that support works, too, and have made it mandatory for all new claimants.
	We have legislated to abolish IB and replace it with the employment and support allowance. That new benefit treats people as individuals, looking to what people can do, not what they cannot. Today, I am announcing that we will migrate everyone from IB on to ESA between 2010 and 2013, with personalised support for everyone, based on our successful pathways programme. We will review the medical test to ensure that it reflects the latest evidence that work is generally good for people's well-being, and we will reassess all existing claimants to ensure that they are on the right benefit for them.
	Those who are ready to work will move on to JSA. Those with the greatest needs will get a higher benefit rate—up from £86.35 to £102.10—and can volunteer for Pathways to Work. We will increase funding for our specialist training programmes and for supported employment. Everyone else will get personalised help, based on pathways, to get them back to health and back to work. However, they will be required to take up that help, and look for work when a doctor recommends it.
	The changes mean that, for the first time, no one will be abandoned to their fate, to get by on benefits. For the vast majority, ESA will be a temporary benefit, not a permanent snare.
	Our third goal is to transform the rights of disabled people. Disabled people do not want to be told that they cannot work. Instead, they want society to remove the discrimination that makes it harder for them to work. So we will double the Access to Work budget, paying for sign language interpreters, specialised IT or help with mobility. Our aspiration is that everyone who could benefit from access to work should be able to do so. We will also consult on a new right to control. We know that individual budgets work. I want to give disabled people the right to know how much the state is spending on them, and request that that money be given to them as a budget that they control. We want to put disabled people in control, not under the control of others.
	The fourth goal is to strengthen parental responsibility. We have lifted 600,000 children out of poverty and, following the £1 billion invested in the Budget, we are set to help another 500,000. But we need to strengthen family life, too. So, for the first time, we will allow parents on benefits to keep all their maintenance payments and require both parents to register the birth of their child. Together with our changes to lone parent benefits, we estimate that these welfare reforms will lift 200,000 children out of poverty.
	Fifthly and finally, we propose to devolve power, so that services can be personalised to the needs of the individual. We want a triple devolution: to our advisers, to our providers and to local communities. Jobcentre Plus is recognised as one of the best back-to-work agencies in the world. Its staff have unrivalled knowledge of their customers and their needs, so we will give our advisers greater flexibility over how much time they spend with each client. We will offer our providers the right to bid for any part of our services that they think they could do better. We will also give local communities the chance to shape how back-to-work services are delivered in their area.
	Most of all, we will implement all the reforms in the Freud report, the report that inspires our Green Paper. We will release the creative energy of the private, voluntary and public sectors. By paying them out of the benefit savings that they generate, we will free our providers to help even more of our customers back into work. And, as David Freud recommended, we will simplify the bewildering complexity of the benefits system. We propose to abolish income support and move current customers on to JSA when resources allow. The result will be a dual system of working age benefits, with ESA offering the right help for sick and disabled people, and JSA doing the same for those actively seeking work or with caring responsibilities. The conditionality regime would be appropriate to each and would not change for carers or parents of younger children.
	Today's publication marks the beginning of the consultation process. We want these proposals to be shaped by the opinions of the public and Parliament, and by the expertise of charities, providers and academics.
	In the past, people were able—in many cases encouraged—to spend a lifetime on benefits. Once they had signed on, the welfare system all too often switched off. There was no expectation that anything could change and precious little support to make that happen. This Green Paper ends all that. It puts us on the road to our ambition of an 80 per cent. employment rate, with 1 million people off incapacity benefit by 2015, the eradication of child poverty by 2020 and equality for disabled people by 2025. The Green Paper will also restore Beveridge's third principle—the principle of incentive, opportunity and responsibility—to where it always should have been: right at the centre of the welfare state. For that reason, the Green Paper will transform the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. I commend it to the House.

Chris Grayling: I start by thanking the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement, although after last week the contents did not come as much of a surprise.
	May I also congratulate the Secretary of State on getting the Green Paper out before the summer recess? I know that many in his party most definitely did not want it published three days before the Glasgow, East poll and I have some sympathy with them. If I were running a by-election campaign on which my leader's future depended, I would not want such a document published in an area of high benefit dependency three days before polling day, either. [Interruption.] But then, hon. Members may suspect that the Secretary of State had other reasons for wanting the document published this week in particular.
	Hon. Members may not know that the Secretary of State began his political career as Tony and Cherie Blair's babysitter. He has come a long way since then— [ Interruption ]—and this Green Paper—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the House should give him a hearing, just as it did the Secretary of State.

Chris Grayling: Today marks the day when the Secretary of State comes into his inheritance as the Blairs' outrider in the House of Commons.
	Today, the whole House should pay tribute to David Freud for the work that he has done and the influence that he has had on the welfare reform debate. His work formed a key part of our welfare green paper in January and of today's announcement.
	Much of today's package is a straight lift from our green paper published in January. It included our plans for compulsory community work programmes for people who have been out of work for more than two years out of three; the Government have now adopted that proposal. It included plans for an independent medical assessment for all claimants of incapacity benefit; the Government have adopted that proposal. It planned to change things so that people could no longer sign on and off benefits for a week to avoid back-to-work programmes; the Government have adopted that as well.
	We should bear it in mind that when we announced our proposals in January, the former Secretary of State described them as uncosted and unworkable, so the Government's Pauline conversion since then is very welcome. Since these are Conservative proposals that we are discussing today, we will certainly support them. Indeed, I know that the Secretary of State will have some difficulties getting them through his own party, so may I assure him that we will help him to get them through the House even if he does have a Back-Bench rebellion to contend with?
	In fact, I would go further than that. Hon. Members should not underestimate the importance of today's announcement and why I am so grateful to the Secretary of State. It is much too late to start making a difference to Britain's benefits culture during this Parliament, but by starting early, this Government are laying the ground work for the next one. We always expected it to take two or three years to get the new system up and running and then for it to take some time after that—when the various pilot projects are done—to maximise the potential savings and benefits of these proposed programmes. Today's announcement means that during the next Parliament—beyond any of the current spending review periods—we will see real savings that can be reinvested in eliminating the couple penalty in the tax credits system, and those plans will take 300,000 children out of poverty. I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for giving us a head start.
	Let me ask the Secretary of State about two points of detail in relation to the Green Paper. First, how much additional budget does he have to pay for the extra back-to-work places that will be needed under Pathways to Work for those currently on incapacity benefit who will be tested between 2010 and 2013 in those areas that are not covered by the annual managed expenditure-departmental expenditure limts—AME-DEL—pilots? Secondly, given all the concerns raised about the employment and support allowance by pressure groups and Labour Back Benchers, can the Secretary of State confirm to the House that no individual will be worse off in real terms after they are transferred from IB to ESA?
	The Opposition welcome today's announcement enthusiastically. We look forward to a constructive debate about it and to trying to work with the Government to turn these proposals into reality as quickly as possible.

James Purnell: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support, of course. When parties agree on proposals, they should not invent artificial political differences. If something is the right thing to do for the country, that is exactly what we should do. The hon. Gentleman was not quite as complimentary as he was outside the House, when he said that the Green Paper was revolutionary, that he was "delighted" and thrilled and that the proposals were great news, but I will wait for him to write to me with those comments.
	I am glad that, for the first time today, the hon. Gentleman has paid tribute to David Freud and his report. To listen to him sometimes, we would think that the Opposition had commissioned the David Freud report, but it was actually commissioned by the Government. When the Opposition published their green paper, they said:
	"Our plan is to build a programme based around the concept set out by David Freud in his report."
	The Government commissioned the report, we have consulted on it and now we are implementing it.
	I am reminded of the quote by Ronald Reagan—I am sure that he is someone the hon. Gentleman will approve of my quoting—who, I think, said that there is no limit to what someone can do in politics if they do not care who gets the credit. The hon. Gentleman can scrabble around trying to get the credit if he wants to; we will get on with doing the right thing for the country.
	When the hon. Gentleman talks about Glasgow, East and Glasgow in general, he betrays a deep misunderstanding, which still pervades the Tory party, about parts of this country. It was the Conservative party that allowed that city to be abandoned for so long, and over the past 10 years, we have been putting that right by halving unemployment in Glasgow and reducing incapacity benefit by 25 per cent. That city has been transformed under a Labour leadership. The hon. Gentleman should be saying to people in Glasgow that he will provide them with that extra support. People will not say that they do not want that support. When I was there recently, people were asking for extra powers and extra support, and asking us finally to put right the mistake that the Conservatives made in the 1980s, which was to abandon people on incapacity benefit without the support that they deserved. We will put that right.
	The hon. Gentleman asked two questions of detail. I am glad to be able to reassure him that the programme outside the areas with AME-DEL pilots—to use the jargon—are also fully funded by the Treasury, and that our budget will be increased to ensure that delivery. That will allow us to offer personalised support across the whole country, and AME-DEL will be on top of that. Also, the hon. Gentleman can be reassured that there will not be any cuts to people's benefits. We will use a much better way of targeting people in the future, using the support group to get more money to people. That is exactly the right thing to do. It is also worth saying that, although these proposals build on David Freud's recommendations, they go further in significant respects. The right to bid is a new initiative, as is the right to control. The doubling of the Access to Work budget and the full child maintenance disregard are new policies that encapsulate the idea behind our Green Paper that there should be support as well as responsibility.
	If the Conservatives want to support that approach, there are two further lessons that they need to learn. The first is that responsibility without support is a hollow bargain, yet that is what the Conservatives are proposing. They say that they want to dismantle the tax credit system because it results in poverty disguised rather than poverty cured—

Chris Grayling: When did we say that?

James Purnell: The hon. Gentleman's leader said last week that we had reached the end of the road for transferring money from the rich to the poor. That was a clear signal that a future Conservative Government would cut back on benefits for the poorest people in this country. We need the right approach—one that combines support and responsibility. The second lesson that the Conservatives need to learn is that any proposals that we or they make need to be costed and funded. They are agreeing to our policies today, and we welcome that, but that means that there is no further money to invest in the couples' penalty, as the hon. Gentleman called it. That money is fully costed in our plans. I trust that, if he wants to repeat that proposal, he will find a new way of funding it. We welcome the Conservatives' support. We will work with them and we hope that we can teach them those two lessons as well.

Frank Field: Given that the social security system compensates people with disabilities through the disability living allowance, and given that I thought most people agreed that it was unwise to have higher rates of benefit for people who stayed on benefit the longest, why did the Secretary of State reject the one radical move that he might have made today—namely, to introduce a single rate of benefit for all people who are workless, irrespective of the cause?

James Purnell: We continue to be interested in the proposals around a single benefit system. Indeed, we are taking a major step towards that today by abolishing income support on top of the abolition of incapacity benefit. That will lead to a system that is based essentially around two benefits: jobseeker's allowance and the employment and support allowance. In the short term, however, going in the direction that my right hon. Friend suggests would involve either spending hundreds of millions of pounds to take the JSA rate up to the ESA rate, or reducing the benefit levels of disabled people on ESA, which is not something that we are prepared to do. We continue to look at proposals for a single benefit system, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will acknowledge that today's proposals represent an important simplification.

Jennifer Willott: It is good to have the opportunity to talk about welfare reform. I think that all my predecessor Lib Dem spokespeople have done so, given that this is the seventh Green Paper on the subject to be produced in the past 10 years. I thank the Secretary of State for giving us an advance copy of his statement, although I think I learned more from what I saw on television on Friday than I did from today's statement.
	I welcome the emphasis today on helping everyone back into work and the focus on the assumption that many more people are capable of contributing if they are given the right support. It is also good to see that the Department has persuaded the Treasury that a new funding model will be essential if this system is to work. I am also glad to see that there is finally recognition that the benefits system is far too complicated, which is something that the Liberal Democrats have been going on about for a number of years.
	However, I would like to raise a number of concerns with the Secretary of State. The first is that these policies are very centralising, and that individuals do not appear to be at the centre of the reforms, no matter what he says. Every jobseeker is different. Many can easily find themselves a job within a few months and with very little assistance, but for others that simply is not the case. Instead of adopting centralised timetables, we should devolve more discretion to advisers in job centres and employment providers so that they know who is able to get jobs themselves and who will need assistance right from the start, rather than waiting a number of months before support can kick in—and the same should apply to sanctions.
	My second concern is about privatisation in the current economic downturn. We agree that private and voluntary sector organisations should be involved in back-to-work support, but the Government's approach is too centralising and large scale and the regional contracts are far too big for voluntary sector organisations to have much of a role in providing them. That will be exacerbated by the right to bid, as the only organisations with the capacity and resources to put in speculative bids will be big private sector companies rather than voluntary organisations.
	That brings me to my biggest concern, which relates to the economic climate. Under the right to bid, there could be very little state provision left, but if it became apparent that the companies were finding it insufficiently profitable to provide those services or could not afford to run certain ones, there would be problems. Has the Secretary of State looked at the evidence and can he assure us that that will not happen?
	My third concern is the system's complexity. The Green Paper reflects what we have said for a number of years—that the benefit system is too complex—but genuine simplification seems to be on the backburner. Will the Secretary of State provide more detail on what he wants the simplification of the system to achieve and a timetable for doing so? Given that the Conservatives say that the Government have adopted all their ideas, may I recommend that the Secretary of State implements the Liberal Democrat policy of a single working age benefit?
	Tackling poverty is the next matter of concern. The Green Paper is based on welfare to work—getting people into work as the route out of poverty—but more children with working parents were living in poverty last year than were children with no parents in work. The number of children of working parents living in poverty has risen over in the past three years, whereas the comparable number of children in poverty with parents out of work has fallen. The lesson appears to be that, under this Government, work does not pay. How do the Government plan to tackle that problem? If this is a genuinely cross-departmental initiative, will the tax credit system be taken into account when looking at benefit simplification?
	The final matter I want to raise with the Secretary of State is that of mental health. The Green Paper talks about drugs misusers, but does not mention people with alcohol problems. In fact, more than a million people on incapacity benefit have mental health problems, which is barely mentioned at all. Although we welcome some elements of the Green Paper, I would be grateful for more suggestions about what it will do to help that large group of people. I look forward to the Secretary of State answering my questions and to seeing the legislation that results from the Green Paper.

James Purnell: I welcome the hon. Lady's backing for our support measures, the new funding mechanism and the simplification measures. We are, of course, happy to continue to reflect on proposals for a single working age benefit, but I think that the Liberal Democrats have to say how they would achieve that. Which benefit rates would they cut in order to have that harmonisation; or, if they are not proposing to cut any benefits, where would they find the extra money to lift everybody up to the level of the highest benefits within the system?  [Interruption.] I note that the hon. Lady says that she is happy to have that conversation and I would happy to hear her set out her proposals.
	It is also important to say that we want to give greater discretion to our advisers. They already exercise quite a lot of discretion, but we want to go further—for example, by giving them more time to discuss issues with people who may need half an hour or a bit longer, so spending correspondingly less time with those who are already looking for work and may need only a couple of minutes to arrange the next interview. We also want to give more discretion to our providers. That is why we are following the so-called black-box approach, where we set the outcomes and the results we want to achieve, but we also free up the people involved to determine how they actually achieve those ends. Where the private and voluntary sector is concerned, it is important that we do not curtail discretion with too many centralised rules.
	The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the third sector and social enterprise have a vital role to play in the delivery of services. Indeed, they already do so, and we are determined that, as we bring in these prime providers, that will be a way of improving our work with the third sector. That is exactly why I have asked the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations and Tony Hawkshead from Groundwork to lead a taskforce looking specifically into this issue. If the hon. Lady has any suggestions, we would be happy to consider them.
	The hon. Lady is wrong to say that the Green Paper does not mention the important issue of mental health. It says specifically that our interventions with pathways for people with mental health problems have not been as successful as others. They have had some success, but we want to look at how to make them more effective, how we can dovetail that with improving access to the psychological therapies roll-out—the roll-out of talking therapy led by the NHS—and how we can work with local areas to improve the co-ordination of mental health and back-to-work services. Work is often the best way of helping people to improve their mental health. We also need to work with employers to change the culture of stigma that too often still applies to people who have mental heath problems.
	The hon. Lady asked about child poverty, and we all agree that its eradication is an important goal. I am not sure that she agrees with us, however, on the target of eradicating child poverty by 2020.  [Interruption.] I am glad that the Liberal Democrats are now formally committed to the 2020 and 2010 targets.  [Interruption.] I am not sure that their commitment is entirely clear. I am interested in how they could achieve that commitment given that their leader wants to cut £20 billion of public expenditure. It will be hard for her to square that circle. I look forward to her trying to do so, but also to working with her on those parts of the Green Paper on which we agree.

Kali Mountford: In congratulating my right hon. Friend on his statement, may I say that it is part of an evolving process over some years whereby the Government have concentrated their efforts on those who are completely isolated from the world of work, who have become used to dependence on benefits, and who have perhaps become comfortable in poverty, which is not a position that we should be satisfied for them to be in? Will he continue to consult those who understand people who have become comfortable in poverty, and not those who feel that people in poverty are scroungers? Does that not preclude consulting the Conservative party?

James Purnell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to suggest that we should never stigmatise people in poverty and that the vast majority of people on IB want to work. We want to provide them with exactly that support, and that is what Pathways to Work does—it provides them with help to manage and improve their condition and to get back into work. It improves the chances of people being in work from 28 per cent. to 35 per cent., and we want to ensure that everyone has the chance to get that support.

Peter Lilley: The Secretary of State will not be surprised that I welcome him announcing policies that I originally enunciated ahead of the 1997 election. I congratulate the three people responsible for today's statement: himself for delivering it; David Freud for persuading him to do so; and my hon. Friend the shadow spokesman for his powers of ventriloquism in spelling out the policies that the Secretary of State has enunciated today.
	However, has the Secretary of State committed himself to David Freud's central proposal, which is based on his realisation that getting people into work is good for the workless person and the taxpayer, but that those who find jobs and help people back into work are not rewarded? Will he reward the success of those in the public sector and in the private and voluntary sectors who bid for programmes getting people back into work? Will he pay them by their results? If so, why has he not spelled out how he will deal with the two central problems—parking people who are difficult to get back into work, and creaming off those who are easy to get back into work? Those are the central issues, and he has not even addressed them in his statement.

James Purnell: I am happy to do so. I confirm, as I said in my statement, that we will pay people by results. We are already doing that in the flexible new deal contracts that we are letting, and in pathways. We will take that approach further with the new funding mechanism—the awfully named AME-DEL mechanism. That will enable us to pay people out of future benefit savings. Instead of leaving people on benefits and then paying the cost, the money will be brought forward and invested. That will improve those people's lives and ensure that we save money, which can be reinvested elsewhere.
	In the flexible new deal, for example, we will avoid people being parked—as the right hon. Gentleman called it—and left without any help, or cream-skimmed, as he also said, by requiring everybody to do at least four weeks mandatory work. As that requirement will be expensive, it will give providers an incentive to get everyone back to work so that they do not have to spend the money. As we develop our new contracts, we will ensure that people are given the right incentives to help everyone—from those who are hardest to help to those who are closest to the labour market.

David Blunkett: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his ministerial team on today's announcement of measures building on the early new deal and employment zone partnerships—which have taught us a great deal—and on the principles set out by the Government in 2005. I particularly welcome the doubling of the Access to Work budget.
	Will my right hon. Friend say something about the timetable for social fund reform, which will be widely welcomed by the 10 major anti-poverty charities with which I have had the privilege of working, and by the 2.5 million people who rely on legal but incredibly high APR repayment rates of more than 180 per cent. and who are caught in poverty as a consequence?
	Let me also thank the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt), for his tenacity in sticking to the issue and avoiding those who would drag him down with their inevitable conservatism.

James Purnell: I echo those congratulations, and also congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work that he has done. The employment zones, which I believe he started, have been one of the inspirations for our work in giving people more flexibility and rewarding them on the basis of the outcomes that they deliver.
	My right hon. Friend was right to point out that reforming the social fund and, in particular, trying to eradicate loan sharks and the terrible damage that they do to many people in our constituencies are at the heart of what we are attempting to do in the Green Paper. We intend to include in our welfare reform Bill powers enabling us to conduct a major pilot to establish how we can reform the social fund so that it can benefit more people, as well as taking significant steps towards getting rid of loan sharks. I look forward to working with my right hon. Friend on those proposals.

George Young: In his statement, the Secretary of State said that he wanted to give disabled people the right to know how much the state was spending on them, and to request that the money be given to them as a budget that they could control. I welcome that move towards individual budgets, but will the Secretary of State tell us whether they will contain not just the sums that his Department spends, but the money spent by local authorities on adult services and, more radically, by the national health service?

James Purnell: We want to include as many funding sources as possible, and there is wide support for that across government. We have seen the way in which giving people control can improve their satisfaction with services, ensure that those services are much more appropriate to their needs, and reduce costs. We will certainly examine local authority spending, as well as a range of other spending. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the NHS is piloting its own individual budgets approach, and we have agreed to build on that. We will consult widely on how we can proceed with our radical proposal.

Hilary Armstrong: As my right hon. Friend will know, numerous people in constituencies such as mine began receiving incapacity and other benefits when the last Government closed the mines and steelworks, and we have a deep problem because so many people have been receiving those benefits for so many years. However, I have observed the exceptionally good work of Jobcentre Plus staff and some of the special teams that pathways has put together, and that of organisations in the voluntary sector that are working with people who have given up on themselves and their families. Can my right hon. Friend assure me, and other Members with constituencies similar to mine, that that special work—done, in some cases, by very small voluntary sector agencies—can be continued and strengthened, so that many more people who have given up will find that there are ways back to the normal world of work for them and their families?

James Purnell: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I can give her precisely that reassurance. That is why the commission I have mentioned is looking into how we can maximise the role of the voluntary sector and of social enterprise in helping people. She is right to emphasise the importance of those specialist voluntary groups that provide services that no one else can. She also makes it clear that people in her constituency, and constituencies such as mine, who have been out of work sometimes for as long as 10 or 20 years want help to get back into work. She and I will have met many people who have received such help and who have said, "I wish I'd done that years ago." These proposals will address precisely that situation.

Jacqui Lait: The Secretary of State will know that the best providers in the field of back-to-work support say that it can take five years to get somebody into work. Is he prepared to let contracts of that length, and if he is, will he ensure that, should the Government decide to change the terms of the contract or to walk away from it, they will, in accordance with best practice, negotiate proper compensation?

James Purnell: Yes and yes.

Tom Levitt: I particularly welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to doubling the Access to Work budget, not only because it will help more disabled people back into work, but because it will help employers retain in the work force people who, through sickness or disability, might otherwise be lost from it, which would be bad for employers as they would lose skills and loyalty, and bad for the individual, who needs to retain the dignity of work. However, in taking these policies forward, will my right hon. Friend remember that there are wolves in sheep's clothing in this place and that we are hearing some good advice today from Members who in the past told us that unemployment was a price worth paying?

James Purnell: My hon. Friend is right about the importance of Access to Work. These proposals will give employers the confidence to employ disabled people because they will know that the state will be there to help with any costs that are not to be met under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. They will also help us cope more effectively with fluctuating conditions, and they will mean that Access to Work will no longer be the best kept secret in my Department. We look forward to working with my hon. Friend on making these proposals work.

John Butterfill: May I bring to the Secretary of State's attention the predicament of a uniquely disadvantaged group of disabled people: the blind and those with severe visual impairment? I know that he and his fellow Ministers have had constructive discussions with the Royal National Institute of Blind People and others representing the blind. Will this group of people now be able to qualify for the higher rate mobility allowance, and can the Secretary of State say how much that is likely to cost and whether it will be possible to meet it from within the budgets he has now been able to establish?

James Purnell: This Green Paper does not cover disability living allowance, so there are no proposals on that issue. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we work closely with the RNIB on it, and we are not against the principle. Some of our discussions have helped to refine the proposal, but we want to continue to work with the institute on the proposal, and we are also happy to continue discussions with Members of this House on the issue.

Joan Humble: I welcome today's statement, which will support people into work and out of poverty. Will my right hon. Friend explain in a little more detail how his proposals will help those individuals who face multiple barriers into work? They could be a lone parent, disabled, from a minority ethnic group or lack any educational qualifications. How will his proposals help such individuals?

James Purnell: That is a very important point, and the Select Committee on which my hon. Friend serves has repeatedly spoken about it. It is the inspiration behind the approach to the flexible new deal and what we are doing with Pathways to Work. Instead of grouping people into the new deal for disabled people, the new deal for lone parents or the new deal for 50-plus as we have done in the past, we will have a single new deal—the flexible new deal—which will allow individuals to be treated according to their circumstances, so that we can help them overcome the barriers to work that they face. That is the approach that will be taken with people on incapacity benefit as well. We want to look at whether we can go even further and have contracts that bring people from different client groups together—those on jobseeker's allowance, or on the employment and support allowance—to give even greater discretion to our providers, so that they can help the person across the desk from them, rather than a notional group invented in Whitehall.

Angela Browning: Last week, I tabled a written question asking the right hon. Gentleman to place before the House the work-focused health-related assessment questionnaire that claimants of the employment and support allowance will need to complete from October. I seek an assurance from him that those assessing the applications will have the necessary specialisms to deal with some of the more complex conditions, in particular the range of learning disability and autistic spectrum disorders. There is a tipping point between giving such people the opportunity to work if we can make that happen—we should, of course, do that—and not undermining their ability to maintain independent living. Such living is sometimes obtained only if there is a recognition that it takes a lot more out of them than it does out of other people

James Purnell: The hon. Lady makes an important point. I am afraid that I have not yet seen her question. She refers to probably the worst of our acronyms: the WFHRA—the work-focused health-related assessment—as it is called in the Department. It is perhaps not the best known of things, but it is vital to the system, because it will not only allow the test to be a medical one, but people with medical expertise and people with expertise in getting people back into work will be able jointly to discuss the right approach for the individual. We want to do that much better to help the kinds of people to whom she referred: those with learning disabilities and people with an autistic spectrum disorder. They will be much better helped under this new test, which is based on consultation with people who have expertise about those conditions. This approach also explains why we want to expand the Workprep and Workstep programmes, which are of particular help to people in those categories.

Michael Jabez Foster: My right hon. Friend has thought perhaps not the unthinkable, but the now thinkable because of the support that his Government have given people in the position that we are discussing. The mentally ill cannot always do work in the same way, and they can come and go. Flexibility of work is important, and that is often available only in the public sector, so does he agree that the public sector sometimes needs to have an opportunity where the private sector does not achieve things?

James Purnell: My hon. Friend is right to say that the public sector needs to play its part and that we need to use procurement to make a big difference in the agenda that he mentions. We need to change the culture in all areas of our work force, as I am sure he would agree. As we were discussing, we need to remove the stigma around mental health. Our Pathways to Work support helps people to cope with fluctuating conditions by giving them the skills to do so. The higher allowance that people will be able to earn in the new employment and support allowance will allow them to try work for more hours than they were able to do previously and, if that works, they will then be able to move into full-time work. If they then want to come out of work, they can return to their previous rate of benefits without fearing that they will then be stranded on a lower rate of benefit.

Pete Wishart: There is a story in  The Herald today suggesting that Glasgow is to be a pilot for all these proposals, but that, surprise, surprise, no announcement is to be made before Thursday. The Chancellor and Prime Minister have been conspicuous by their absence from the streets of Glasgow in the past few weeks. Surely they should now come to Glasgow to explain fully their intentions to the people of Glasgow—if they dare.

James Purnell: I do not know what to say to that. Unfortunately, if we had done the opposite and not included Scotland, the hon. Gentleman would be saying that it was an outrage that we were helping people in all other parts of the United Kingdom but not those in Scotland. As he knows, the election purdah rules restrict what we can say about Glasgow specifically. He should also know that what we are doing in terms of devolving powers to people is based specifically on what people in Glasgow and, in particular, the Labour council, have asked us to do. It has an innovative and radical approach of guaranteeing apprenticeships to all young people. It is doing that in spite of the cuts that his Administration are making to apprenticeships in that country. He needs to step up to the plate to provide the child care, the drugs treatment and the apprenticeships to make this policy work. I trust that he will do just that, rather than scoring political points.

Gordon Prentice: My friend told us in his statement that Jobcentre Plus is recognised as one of the best back-to-work agencies in the world. Does he have a target for the number of civil servants that he would like transferred to the private and voluntary sectors to deliver the new proposals?

James Purnell: No, because that would be very much the old agenda of trying to privatise things and this is exactly the opposite; it is to say that we now have the private and voluntary sectors as part of business as usual in the DWP. They deliver a third of our services. That is a massive transformation compared with the system that we inherited from the Conservative party, and we do that because they provide good services. If the private and voluntary sectors or social enterprise organisations can help to improve our services, we should do exactly that. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome that and back it.

Greg Clark: The Secretary of State has been studying our green papers closely and I commend that, but he will know that the proposed right to bid appears in our voluntary sector green paper. We call it the right to supply. Will he implement that fully and, in particular, allow charities and social enterprises to make a return of surplus to reinvest if they succeed, and not limit them just to having their costs returned?

James Purnell: I hope that it will not offend the hon. Gentleman too much if I say that I have not read that particular green paper, which I think was published relatively recently. I think that our proposal was made before his green paper came out. The key point is that we want people who provide good services to be able to make good profits and, if they are in the voluntary or social enterprise sectors, to be well rewarded. Such an approach will improve our services.

Barbara Keeley: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Lone parents and carers would also benefit from the availability of more flexible work. Will steps be taken to promote flexible working, so that many more such jobs are flagged up and advertised, and many more people can be encouraged back to work?

James Purnell: Yes, that is a good point and it is exactly what we are doing as part of our local employment partnerships and in taking forward the carers strategy. Many carers say that they want to return to work and we have worked closely with Carers UK to ensure that we can deliver services that are specific to carers and to help them to overcome the particular barriers that they face.

Anne Main: Will there be any restriction, limitation or guidance on the range of occupations that may be expected to be taken up by those who are perhaps slightly choosy about the work that they would like to do? People in my constituency often look around, see a load of litter and ask why it is not being picked up, perhaps by young offenders doing community service, and we are told that that is because such work is considered demeaning. Will any particular guidance be given on the range of occupations that people may be expected to take up whether they like it or not?

James Purnell: That will be up to our providers. That is an example of what I was saying about our not telling our providers exactly how to deliver the service. We will reward them on the basis of results and it should be up to them to determine the kind of work, and combination of work and skills in preparation for returning to work, that will be right for the people for whom it is provided. I do not want to undermine the innovation of the private, voluntary and public sectors by defining from the centre how they should deliver, but we should not be stigmatising people but rather doing what will help them to get back into work. If we end up stigmatising people, we make it harder to do that.

Chris Bryant: Ever since the pits closed across south Wales, far too many of my constituents have been consigned to a life of benefits-based poverty, so I wholly welcome what my right hon. Friend says. But one significant problem is that more than 50 per cent. of my constituents on incapacity benefit receive it for mental health reasons, and many employers are chary of employing people with such problems, so what will be done about that? Has he spoken with the Welsh Assembly to ensure that more talking therapies are available in south Wales so that we do not just have people popping pills all the time?

James Purnell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those are vital steps to take to increase the employment rate among people with mental health conditions, which I think is the lowest rate for any of the conditions that we are trying to help people with. We need to remove the stigma around mental health and to improve the provision of talking therapies, as he says, and he will be glad to know that we are in close contact with the Welsh Assembly Government to ensure that we can dovetail our policies. As he knows, the whole approach that Pathways to Work follows was piloted and inspired by work done in Wales, and that is why we are confident that it will be the right approach in Wales as it will be in the rest of the UK.

Robert Goodwill: As somebody who likes to think that he is on the right wing of the Conservative party, I am thrilled to hear today's statement, which is great news. In that statement, the Secretary of State says that for the 2 per cent. anticipated to be still out of work after two years, mandatory full-time work programmes will be explored. Does he mean that he will explore whether to have such programmes, or explore the details of programmes that we will definitely have?

James Purnell: No, we will spend £20 million on those programmes. It will be a national pilot. We want to work out what works and then roll it out.

Karen Buck: As a general principle, it is hard to overstate the importance of fathers' involvement in the lives of their children, but people have messy and complicated lives. It would not be unfair to say that the history of Parliament reminds us that not just people on benefits have messy and complicated lives. I welcome the announcement that people on benefits will have maintenance payments disregarded, which is a very positive thing, but will the Secretary of State assure me that women who, for good reason or through no fault of their own, are unable to have a father registered at the birth of their child will not be penalised?

James Purnell: Yes, I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that reassurance. The proposals are based on what has happened in Australia, where they have got the balance absolutely right. The default is that both parents have to be registered, but not when it is impractical or not in the interests of the child. I hope that when she sees our proposals, she will be reassured.

Bob Spink: I broadly welcome this move, which in many ways follows UKIP's welfare to work policy, as it does Liberal and Conservative policies. May I ask how the Secretary of State will ensure that decisions taken by the providers on the type of work and on enforcing work over the mandatory four-week period will be maintained as rational and non-discriminatory? Will there be any appeals? How will the quality of the decision be underwritten?

James Purnell: It is absolutely right that the proposals should be subject to review and that they should be carried out in the right way. I am delighted to see that the hon. Gentleman's parliamentary party is completely united behind his leadership in backing our proposals.

Kerry McCarthy: I very much welcome the proposals in the Green Paper to require people to seek drug treatment if they want to carry on claiming benefit. I have not yet had a chance to speak to many agencies in my constituency, many of whom are providing excellent drug treatment, but I suspect that they would have two concerns. First, it can be quite difficult to provide treatment to people if they are being compelled to attend rather than doing so through their own free will. The second point is on the simple question of funding. Such agencies are already rather overstretched. They would be delighted to be able to offer services to whoever puts themselves forward, but how will they be able to fund that?

James Purnell: As my hon. Friend knows, we have the progress2work programme, which helps people with drug addiction or previous drug addiction to overcome their addiction and get back into work. That is the approach that we want to build on.
	This is a radical proposal that was inspired by conversations with people who are recovering or are in recovery from drug addiction. They say that at the moment the system treats them as though they are jobseekers when they are trying to recover. For example, we have been asking people to go to work focused interviews bang in the middle of carrying out their rehab. Clearly, that is the wrong approach. We need instead to work with charities and organisations in the field to see how we can provide them with the employment support and the treatment that they need to ensure that people can get off drugs. Drugs, as my hon. Friend knows, scar families, can scar communities and are a significant cause of poverty. If we can help people to treat themselves, we can help communities too.

Peter Bone: I understand the Government and the Secretary of State's desire to move people off incapacity benefit and on to jobseeker's allowance so that they can get into employment, but there seems to be a flaw in the current policy because 50 per cent. of the appeals against being moved off incapacity benefit and on to jobseeker's allowance are being upheld. Does the Secretary of State have some concern that vulnerable people are being moved off incapacity benefit who should really still be on it?

James Purnell: That is exactly why we want a new test for the employment and support allowance. We think that the previous test did not identify the right people. We think that the new test, the work capability assessment, will do that more effectively. Of course, we want to reduce the level of successful appeals and to take the right decision at the initial stage. The problem is often that people supply different and additional information at the second stage, meaning that a different decision turns out to be needed, which we had no way of knowing in the first place.

Dari Taylor: I warmly welcome the statement. I represent some blind and partially sighted people and the major obstacle we face in terms of Access to Work is making employers confident about employing disabled people. They see the disability, not the ability. How will my right hon. Friend engage with employers to bring them on board and make them feel confident that this is a serious opportunity for them?

James Purnell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we do not use the potential of everybody in the work force, including disabled people, we are, first, not giving them the chance to realise their ambitions and, secondly, not having as successful a work force as we otherwise could. Access to Work will give employers confidence that if there are extra costs, they can be met from the Access to Work budget. It is vital that we change attitudes, and our employability campaign is doing exactly that. Recently, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform spoke to a primary care trust whose research showed that people who had come off incapacity benefit were less likely to take time off than the rest of the work force. People who had got better and gone back to work were determined not to go back.

David Taylor: Success has many parents and failure is an orphan, so it is no wonder there has been such widespread support for the Secretary of State's announcement today. However, one part of his statement bears the unmistakeable leitmotif of the section of the party of which he is a distinguished luminary; I speak of the desire to outsource and privatise anything that is not bolted down. Will he tell the House what standards he will expect and impose on those who will want to deliver services so that he does not finish up in the same situation as his Cabinet colleague, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, dealing with firms such as ETS, which have a voracious appetite but not the competence to go with it?

James Purnell: Obviously, it would be wrong for me to comment on that issue. We want to use good providers and to choose people who will provide good services. We do not have to choose the cheapest provider; we can choose providers on the basis of quality. We value immensely the work of people in the DWP. It is a very good delivery Department, which has transformed its services over the past few years. We have reduced the head count by 30,000 but improved our productivity and services. We should thank our civil servants more often for their fantastic work.

Geraldine Smith: It is right that when people can work, they do. No one would disagree with that, but what about people who can work only sometimes? There are such people on incapacity benefit and they would very much like to get back to work but they may have difficulty finding employers, particularly in the private sector. It is a lot to expect a small business to take on someone who may be off work from time to time with illness. The public sector has to play a massive role in getting people back to work—not only the voluntary sector.

James Purnell: That is absolutely right. All sectors must play their part. The doubling of the Access to Work budget will help, as will the higher amount that people will be able to earn on ESA—I think it is £86.35—which will allow them to try out work before having to decide whether to come off the benefit.

Points of Order

John Baron: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that there is chaos in certain areas of the school testing system. The key stage test results have been delayed, an inquiry has been launched and press releases have apparently been issued by Departments, yet the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families has still not come to the House to explain the situation and to enable us to ask questions. What can you do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to help us to put that right?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not possible for the Chair to command the appearance of a Minister at the Dispatch Box, but even in the dying hours before the recess begins, there may be an opportunity for Members to raise the matter—one can think of such an opportunity in the next 24 hours.

David Taylor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Just days ago, I raised a point of order on the inclination of the then occupant of the Chair about such a statement. Could you advise Back Benchers what levers they have, with 24 hours to go before the major recess, to get further details about something that affects so many thousands of our constituents? I speak of course of the ETS debacle.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Obviously, I am not unaware of the seriousness of the situation for many people, but I can only repeat that there are yet opportunities for hon. Members to seek answers to their questions.

Peter Bone: Further to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have heard a lot of complaints about key stage test results. You say that there are opportunities for Back Benchers to raise the issue in the next 24 hours; will you give me some indication of how we might do that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should know by now that there is the opportunity to put forward an urgent question for consideration by Mr. Speaker. There is also a debate tomorrow that takes place on the premise that the House should not adjourn until certain matters have been discussed. As to what may follow from that, I leave that to the hon. Gentleman's imagination.

BILL PRESENTED

Microgeneration and Local Energy

Dr. Alan Whitehead, supported by Colin Challen, Andrew George, Peter Bottomley, Mr. Martin Caton, Mr. Elliot Morley, Alan Simpson and Mr. David Drew, presented a Bill to make further provision for the promotion of microgeneration and energy efficiency; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 October, and to be printed. [Bill 143].

Topical debate
	 — 
	Bercow Review

4.35 pm

Kevin Brennan: I beg to move,
	That the House has considered the matter of the Bercow review of services for children and young people (0-19) with speech, language and communication needs.
	On behalf of the Government, and in particular on behalf of the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Department of Health, I warmly welcome the important report by the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) and its recommendations for further action. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families said in his written ministerial statement, under the hon. Gentleman's exemplary leadership, the Bercow report has set
	"a benchmark for future reviews"—[ Official Report, 8 July 2008; Vol. 478, c. 71WS.]
	My Department and the Department of Health want to thank the hon. Gentleman and his team of expert advisers for their hard work over the past 10 months. They have been meticulous in collecting and analysing the evidence, and they have been very effective in involving interested parties in their work. They visited every part of the country, from Norwich to Newcastle and from Westminster to Wigan, and collected evidence from front-line practitioners on the challenges that they face and how those challenges might be overcome. Above all, they have successfully drawn on the experiences of children, young people and families, providing a range of opportunities for them to contribute to the review. For example, the online consultation generated about three times the number of responses that are usually received in similar reviews.
	As we all know, the hon. Gentleman has a deep and passionate commitment to this issue. His determination to transform the lives of children and young people with speech, language and communication needs has made the report the success that it clearly is. I think we picked the right man for the job, but I want to make it clear—I know that the hon. Gentleman would agree with this—that the Government did not commission the review because we thought he was a top bloke and an all-round good egg; we commissioned the review because it fits in with the ambitious task that we set ourselves in the children's plan: to make this the best country in the world for children to grow up in.
	In many ways, the review encapsulates many of the principles that are at the heart of the Every Child Matters agenda, the children's plan, and all that our Department, in conjunction with the Department of Health and the whole Government, is trying to achieve. The review envisages a service that is universal, but that adapts to the needs and circumstances of individual children and their families. It stresses the need for early intervention, supported by joined-up working by all the professionals and agencies involved.

Nick Herbert: Does the Minister appreciate the needs of such people as Sarah Wates in my constituency, who came to my surgery on Friday? She takes a close interest in the issue because her son, Alex, has speech difficulties. He was meant to be assessed at the age of two, but he was not assessed until six months later, and they have been trying to catch up ever since. The report by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) stresses the importance of early intervention, as the Minister has done. Will the Minister say how constituents such as Sarah Wates will be helped in future, and how we will ensure early intervention, which is so important?

Kevin Brennan: Such people will be helped principally by the implementation of the review's recommendations. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: clearly, there must be an emphasis on early intervention. If there has been a historical fault with these services, it has been that intervention has not been early enough. In his report, the hon. Member for Buckingham has rightly stressed the importance of early intervention—the need for us to commission services that achieve it across different Departments and for us to work together towards the vision and make sure that services are aiming to intervene early, rather than too late.
	This is about trying to support the most vulnerable and disadvantaged members of our society and helping children to make the most of their potential. To that end, I visited a school last week with the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, who has joined us today. We met a young man who had had communication difficulties when he first went to secondary school. That manifested itself in bad behaviour, poor achievement and his getting into trouble at school. However, as a result of the measures taken by his school, the young man was able to turn his life around. He described to me and the Secretary of State the feelings that he had when he was frustrated by his inability to communicate and how that had meant that he was getting into trouble with his peers and teachers. He told us how he had turned his life around, a fact that was confirmed during our conversations with his teachers and parents. It is absolutely clear that early intervention is the key to dealing with these issues.

Damian Green: rose—

Lee Scott: rose—

Kevin Brennan: I have been given a delightful choice.  [Interruption.] I shall take the intervention of the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), as he has been bold enough to remain on his feet.

Damian Green: On early intervention, one of the most important recommendations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) was in respect of the need for local and regional centres. May I draw the Minister's attention to the charity Find a Voice—which is based in my constituency and of which, irrelevantly, I happen to be president—as a possible model? It has achieved tremendous results in directly helping children and adults to communicate better. It has also helped teachers and therapists throughout Kent and Medway with its resource library of communications aids. Obviously, the Minister is welcome to visit, but he should certainly investigate Find a Voice as a model for the future which could be replicated in other areas. It would make a significant practical difference to the lives of many people.

Kevin Brennan: As the review shows, the hon. Member for Buckingham saw all sorts of different approaches taken around the country; they are often imaginative and involve charities such as the one in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ashford. Clearly, they have a big part to play as we commission these kinds of services.

Lee Scott: Will the Minister examine some of the early interventions and experiences of other countries, particularly those of Scandinavia and Israel? Early interventions there have proved very successful and can help greatly in subsequent years.

Kevin Brennan: The hon. Gentleman is right; we need to learn from abroad. The hon. Member for Buckingham visited Denmark while undertaking his review for exactly that reason: to find out the sorts of lessons that we can learn from abroad.
	We have already committed to taking action in each of the areas highlighted by the hon. Gentleman in his report. We are building on the record of investment and improvements to the work force and the targeted programmes of support already in place for those with communication needs. In the past seven years, local authorities' planned expenditure on special educational needs has risen from £2.8 billion to £4.9 billion last year. Since 1997, the number of speech and language therapists has risen by more than a third. Our new inclusion development programme is now ensuring that more new teachers and early-years professionals have had training in speech, language and communication needs.

Nick Hurd: rose—

Bob Spink: Will the Minister give way?

Kevin Brennan: In the interests of fairness to all the parties represented in the House, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink).

Bob Spink: Does the Minister intend to take action on the plight of young people with hearing loss, who are suffering from a recent massive increase in the cost of lip-reading classes imposed by uncaring county councils, such as Essex county council, which are not spending their money appropriately?

Kevin Brennan: The role of central Government is to set the standards and framework, and it is for local government to deliver on that. That should be inspected against any action to be taken as and when necessary. I note the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Nick Hurd: The Minister talks about the plans to invest more in speech and language therapy. The Government are spending some £63 million on education in young offender institutions. Research by Professor Karen Bryan and others indicates that perhaps two thirds of inmates of such institutions cannot access those programmes because of their learning difficulties and language skills. Can the Minister clarify how many full-time speech and language therapists are operating in those institutions, and what plans the Government have to increase that number?

Kevin Brennan: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that information at this point, but I will be pleased to write to him in order to do so. It is vital that we ensure that young offenders have an opportunity to deal with such issues while they are in custody, and that formed part of the discussion in the report. The Government have indicated that we accept that there is a need for action in all areas covered in the report, and that an implementation plan will be published in the autumn.

Simon Burns: On investment in the education of children through local authorities, is the Minister aware of the fantastic work done at Fairley House school, behind the Tate, where there is a blend of pupils: those from the private sector and—a significant proportion—those who are funded by Westminster city council? However, certainly up to four years ago, the annual fees for that day school were about £18,000, which is a considerable amount of money. What can be done to bring the rest of state sector up to the standards that Fairley House provides for its pupils to deal with their learning difficulties?

Kevin Brennan: We have to approach special educational needs, particularly these sorts of difficulties, from the point of view of the individual child in trying to ensure that we are able to provide the best possible support for them. In the instance that the hon. Gentleman indicates, Westminster city council will have taken a decision that that is the most appropriate provision for such a child at a local level. The more that we can do to implement the recommendations in the report, the more we will raise the standards of what is available at a local level, as well as ensuring that there is more comparability between what is available in local areas, which was a key point in the report.

David Lepper: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Kevin Brennan: I will, as I have not given way to a Labour Member, and then I will make some progress.

David Lepper: I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the report by the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow). Carden school in my constituency was one of those that he visited, and he has acknowledged the excellent work done there. The Minister has emphasised the work being done and support being given in our schools. Does he agree that children's centres have a unique role to play in bringing together the education service, primary care trusts and other services in one location to work on early intervention with children and their parents?

Kevin Brennan: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Like schools, children's centres have an important part to play in the whole programme and approach as regards early intervention and the co-location of services. The 21st century school, working closely with children's centres and so on, will be a place where services are co-located and where early intervention is a natural part of its work.
	I will now try to make further progress, as the purpose of these debates is to give Back Benchers an opportunity to participate.  [ Interruption . ] I am sure I would be criticised by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) if I did not give way, so I will not apologise to him.
	On 9 July, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children, Young People and Families launched "Every Child a Talker", a new £40 million programme that will be rolled out to early-years professionals across the country over the next three years. Characteristically, the hon. Member for Buckingham has not pulled any punches in his report. He made 40 recommendations for further improvements to services for children with communication difficulties, and, given the admonitions from those on the Opposition Front Bench, the House will be relieved to know that I do not intend to go through all 40 during the course of this short speech. I can confirm, however, that we agree on the need for action in each of the areas that he has addressed. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Children, Young People and Families has announced that the Government will invest up to £12 million for this purpose. Later this year, we will produce a detailed action plan, setting out how we will implement each recommendation, the relevant time scales and the way we will allocate our investment.
	For now, I shall just comment on each of the five main themes of the report. First, we agree fully with the hon. Member for Buckingham that communication is critical for all children and young people, and I can confirm that we will create a ministerial-level communication council. We will appoint a communication champion, who will oversee a national year of speech, language and communication, and we will ensure that good quality information, advice and support are available to parents. Secondly, we agree that early identification of needs and early intervention are vital, and we will introduce measures to improve the monitoring of children across the age range.
	Thirdly, we agree that speech and language services should form a continuum around the family. As the report recommends, my Department and the Department of Health will work together to develop a joint commissioning framework for universal targeted and specialist services, and we will do that through pathfinders in a number of local areas throughout the country. Fourthly, we agree with the call for joint working between agencies at all levels, from strategic managers to front-line professionals. As the report says, children's trusts have an important role to play, and we agree that each trust should consider appointing a senior lead on speech, language and communication issues. Fifthly, we agree that there must be greater consistency in the services provided for children, young people and families with communication needs in different areas of the country. We will, therefore, use our commissioning guidance to promote better monitoring of performance. In particular, we will encourage better use of the data on the educational attainment of children and young people with speech, language and communication needs.
	Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Buckingham for his excellent work on these important issues. His review challenges us to support local areas and front-line professionals in transforming the lives and prospects of children and young people with speech, language and communication needs, and we will do our utmost to meet the challenge that he has set for us.

Royal assent

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Appropriation (No. 2) Act 2008
	Finance Act 2008
	Sale of Student Loans Act 2008
	Special Educational Needs (Information) Act 2008
	Statute Law (Repeals) Act 2008
	Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008
	Health and Social Care Act 2008
	Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008
	National Insurance Contributions Act 2008
	London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2008

Bercow Review

Question again proposed .

John Bercow: It is a pleasure to follow the Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), and I am particularly grateful to him for his generous remarks this afternoon. I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge and pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, who have been unstinting in their support and encouragement of me in this venture during the past 10 months.
	A great many colleagues have engaged with the review, either by inviting me to visit a pre-school, primary school, secondary school or somewhere with post-16 provision, or by making a written submission. To each and every one of them, for their contribution to an important task, I am greatly indebted. Although it is invidious to single out an individual, I am moved to pay a special tribute to someone who has gone the extra mile—way beyond the call of duty—in submitting material to me and offering me personal support and encouragement throughout, and that is the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), whom I am delighted to see in his place.
	The Under-Secretary referred to the process through which my colleagues on the review advisory group and I have gone in the past 10 months. We have sought evidence from four different sources. First, we launched an online consultation questionnaire in October, to which, on the due date of 18 January, we had received more than 2,000 replies, of which just over half were from parents, telling us what they thought, what worked, what did not work, and what was needed.
	Secondly, we staged a series of focus or consultation groups around the country, calling on children, young people and their parents to offer their impressions of the state of services. In addition, we thought it justified and prudent to stage two particular focus groups on the thorny questions of augmentative and alternative communication under the auspices of Scope on the one hand, and of provision for young offenders, courtesy of the Prison Reform Trust, on the other.
	Thirdly, as the Under-Secretary said, we went round the country, visiting pre-schools, primary schools, secondary schools and post-16 facilities. A plethora of different examples were presented to us. We wanted to see not only London and the south-east but the midlands, the north and the south-west, urban and rural areas, mixed communities, different social cohorts and so on, to get the widest possible representative picture of what currently is—and is not—on offer.
	Finally, we thought it right to secure the services of some noted and distinguished academic researchers in speech, language and communication, a group of whom have engaged in a detailed project to look at service provision in six different areas, and seek to adduce evidence from their studies, the better to inform future policy making and the prospects of necessary and beneficial research.
	We have formed some fairly clear and explicit conclusions, based on what we saw around the country. Without doubt, some excellent professionals and high-quality services are out there, but, on the whole, the current state of speech, language and communication provision is highly unsatisfactory. Access to information and services is often poor; the quality of services is very mixed; continuity across the age range is lacking; joint working between health and education professionals, which is so critical to achieving success, is rare, and the system is characterised by high variability and a lack of equity, the short-hand translation of which is that a postcode lottery currently exists throughout the country. Above all, the priority attached to communication is too low. In our judgment, that must change.

David Tredinnick: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the report. I wrote to him about specific problems in my constituency with the recognition and treatment of dyslexia. Will he say a word about his findings about the more difficult conditions of autism and Asperger's syndrome, which appear increasingly to affect children nowadays?

John Bercow: I certainly will pick up on the theme that my hon. Friend has identified, because it is essential to cater for all the groups on the spectrum. I will say something more shortly about the need for a broad range of provision.
	The Under-Secretary referred to the five themes around which the review's recommendations have been formulated. Communication is crucial—it is the key life skill that enables children to learn, achieve, make friends and interact with the world around them. It is a vital part of the equipment of citizenship, yet all too often it has not enjoyed that priority in the minds of commissioners or policy makers. Sometimes an unwritten, unspoken and—dare I say it?—lazy assumption has been made that children will speak when they are ready, and other important aspects of the children's development agenda have tended to elbow speech, language and communication out of the way.
	That is why we have recommended the creation of a ministerial communication council upon which both the Department of Health and the Department for Children, Schools and Families would be prominently represented. We believe, too, that an identified individual with relevant expertise and commitment—a communication champion—should be appointed to drive forward the process of implementation, to report to the communication council, to raise awareness and to disseminate best practice. The communication champion will, over time and after appropriate and due preparation, have responsibility for overseeing and running the national year of speech, language and communication.
	As part of that process of investing in speech, language and communication services and making them a great priority, it is right that information at key ages and stages of a child's development should be proactively made available, in a readily accessible form, to children, young people and, in particular, their parents, charting the normal course of communication development, indicating where a person should go if there is a difficulty and advising parents on how best they can assist in the process of bolstering their children's speech, language and communication development. That concept—that communication is crucial—accompanied and reinforced by a series of specific recommendations, is very important.
	The Minister rightly referred to early intervention. At the risk of being marginally pedantic, I would like to describe it as early identification and intervention. If we are to identify early, we need regular monitoring and surveillance of children's speech, language and communication development at key ages and stages. We have not been over-prescriptive—there is scope for differences of opinion on the exact point at which it is most appropriate to undertake the monitoring; indeed, there is also scope for local variation in what is judged to be right—but the principle that monitoring and surveillance should be done, that it should be done regularly, and that it should be done with a view to securing a signpost to appropriate assistance if there is a problem, is important and, indeed, inviolable.
	We all know that if we intervene early when there is a problem, the child has a better chance, other things being equal, of overcoming the difficulty, accessing the national curriculum and fulfilling his or her potential. The logical corollary of that is that if we do not intervene early, the problems mount: emotional and psychological difficulties, behavioural problems, lower educational attainment, poorer employment prospects, persistent communication impairment, challenges to mental health and, in extremis, even a descent into offending and reoffending. That is why it is so important that we intervene early, both through that monitoring and surveillance, and by making speech, language and communication a prime component—a centrepiece—of the work of all children's centres.

David Blunkett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his enormous generosity towards me. I also congratulate him on an excellent piece of work and on persuading the Government to have a year dedicated to bringing it alive and implementing its recommendations. I would like to pick up his point about early identification. Following my hon. Friend the Minister's comment about point three of the five-point plan, may I suggest that in the identification process, we need to take account of the fact that for many children—not all, but many—there will have been a problem in identifying speech, language and communication difficulties in their lives already, before they reach a statutory group or even before they are identified by Sure Start, and that it is very important to work with the family, not just the child, on bringing alive that child's talent and capability?

John Bercow: The right hon. Gentleman could not have put it more powerfully if he had tried. That early intervention is incredibly important. Yes, it involves the child, but it is important to ensure that we have the benefit of the services of multidisciplinary teams. Precisely which representative will be relevant in a particular case will vary from one situation to another, but we need to have speech and language therapists, teachers, classroom assistants and special educational needs co-ordinators as part of the mix. Indeed, health visitors might be needed in certain circumstances, too. Some flexibility in that process is important.
	Reference has already been made to the continuum of services, and I want to underline that we need to ensure that, through effective joint commissioning between education and health services, we commission services that are across the piece. They should be universal services that can be of benefit to all children and young people who need to have their capacity to communicate taught, honed and nurtured. We need targeted services for those who require a little additional help—sometimes only for a short period and sometimes for longer—and specialist services, which are often tailored for the benefit of those with acute and ongoing needs, who will realistically require extensive and specialist provision, including therapy, sometimes for long periods.
	I simply say, in all courtesy, to the Government that I have made recommendations in respect of augmentative and assistive communication—that is to say, for those who require communication aids—and in respect of the requirements of young offenders, about which there is still some anxiety and scepticism. My message to the Government is that in taking this process forward and securing what I hope will be the advantageous implementation of the report's recommendations, we must be sure that we do more than just the easy stuff. We must cater more widely than just for those with relatively minor difficulties and those who need low-dosage intervention, of whom there are large numbers. They are incredibly important, and Ministers are right to highlight those cases. However, we also have a duty to do more—to do all that is necessary—to bring benefit to those whose needs are the most acute. A child or young person who requires an expensive piece of technological kit in order to have a voice is deeply needy. They might be non-verbal, and in such situations we must stop at nothing to ensure that the appropriate help is provided. We must not fight shy of knowing the scale and incidence of the challenge with which we are confronted.
	In taking forward the pathfinders, we will learn a great deal. There will be five areas involved, and I am grateful to the Government for the fact that they will be funded by the Department for Children, Schools and Families or the Department of Health—they can fight about that between themselves—and will have a responsibility to assess need, to devise services, to secure the appropriate skilled work force, to put the processes into effect, to monitor the outcomes and to report the results. That means having a work force, to boot, which is why we have recommended that speech, language and communication must be at the heart of all the qualifications leading to the integrated qualifications framework. Qualified teacher status must demand a greater knowledge of, and—to a degree—expertise in, speech, language and communication. It is also right that speech, language and communication should be a core requirement and an elective module of the new master's degree in teaching and learning, on whose introduction I congratulate the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families.
	Joint working must be to the fore, but I am sorry to say that at the moment, that principle is honoured more often in the breach than in the observance, especially at the level of strategic planning and priority setting. That is why I have said that we should let each children's trust designate an appointed person to drive forward the pursuit of improved speech, language and communication outcomes. I speak possibly as the voice of cynical experience when I say that I have a sense that if something is everybody's responsibility, ultimately it is no one's responsibility. If we name an individual and give him or her a task, set the benchmark, require the assessment and demand the performance, at least there will be a likelihood of a catalyst for improvement. Certainly, the public would have someone to whom they could properly direct their complaints or representations if success were not achieved.
	Tackling postcode variations is critical. Local variation, local initiation, local social entrepreneurship, and local variety depending on the make-up of one area relative to another are of course valid and necessary. However, we need to make some sort of core offer to children and young people that they can depend upon. They need a certain level and type of service, irrespective of the part of the country in which they happen to live. In that regard, I perhaps risk upsetting the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), but I say that there is a compelling case for the continuation of early-years targets beyond 2011, and for working towards the development of a national indicator on speech, language and communication as the prelude to a public service agreement target post-2011.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have to say that engagement in this review has been the single most stimulating and rewarding endeavour of my 11-year parliamentary life. It is about two things. It is about helping needy, marginalised, vulnerable and sometimes frightened young people, because that is the right and decent thing to do. I have a child who is so affected, and I make no apology for trying to do my best to ensure that other children get the sort of excellent help that my son Oliver is receiving.
	However, this issue is not just or even mainly about compassion or niceness or being decent; it is also about the authentic self-interest of Britain plc, because tackling these problems is relevant to the educational attainment agenda. It is relevant to the greater qualifications agenda, to the acquisition of vocational skills agenda, to the fight against antisocial behaviour agenda, to the improvement of public health agenda, and to the pursuit of the commercial advantage of UK plc in an age in which a job for life is a relic of the past and the premium placed on speech, language and communication in today's knowledge economy is greater than ever. If in my small way, with the assistance of a fantastic advisory group and the support and engagement of parliamentarians throughout the House, I can broker an improvement in services for, and the life chances of, these vulnerable children and young people, I can say that I shall die a happier man—although not, I hope, just yet.

Hilary Armstrong: I too congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) on his report, which will stimulate a great deal more thinking and many more ideas. In a sense, he finished where I want to begin, with the point that paying attention to this issue is absolutely critical for the future of this country.
	An interesting report was published by the Institute for Public Policy Research last November, entitled, I believe, "Freedom's Orphans". It examined two cohorts of children—we are very good at longitudinal studies in this country—born on a particular day in different years and looked into the differences in their lives. What it showed, among many other things, was that the very skills that people need to get the jobs available these days—skills centred on basic good communication—are frequently not developed. It showed that too many children are growing up without the experience of really good interaction with adults, so they do not acquire the negotiating skills or the communication skills required for them to get what they want. For example, they often do not make eye contact or convey the sort of things that we often take for granted. That means that they are unable to get jobs in call centres or in the service industries—the sort of jobs available for them today.
	That report stimulated my interest in this topic, and I have also had a lifelong interest in trying to improve education. I think that we have too often missed this crucial issue as we have sought to develop educational opportunity for all, trying to give everyone a fair chance in this world. I would have liked to deal with many issues in the Bercow report, but I am going to confine myself to two areas. The first, which is centred on the work force, I shall touch on only briefly.
	The hon. Member for Buckingham is absolutely right to say that we must take far more seriously the point that the whole work force must have appropriate training and support in order to tackle these problems with all the children they work with; but we must also try to identify precisely and at an early stage when things are going wrong, and subsequently develop a series of strategies to intervene effectively.
	I was in a primary school a couple of weeks ago, where the teacher identified to me—privately—two children in the class whom she was worried about. Both of them lacked effective communication and language skills. For one of them it was straightforward to see why; for the other it was much more difficult. The teacher was saying, "I don't feel I have the knowledge or understanding to help these two children adequately." I was horrified, because that simply should not happen today. Across the board, attention to the work force is absolutely critical.
	It will not surprise the hon. Member for Buckingham to hear that the second issue that I want to speak about is early identification and intervention. I am absolutely convinced that that can be done much more systematically and rigorously than at present. As we have provided many more children's centres, with access for every family, we must do more than just hope that children are identified: when it is clear that there will not be normal speech, language and communication development in families, we must rigorously ensure that those children are identified and worked with early.
	I have told the House previously that I have taken up again with NCH—soon to change its name—and had the privilege of visiting some of the children's centres in which it is involved in the Northumberland area, including the Ashington children's centre. NCH's briefing for Members highlights its work, which includes employing language development workers to identify at an early age children who have, or are at risk of, speech and language delay or disorder. It offers individual outreach support to families, who will be visited over a six to eight-week period. It is finding that addressing the problem early through such support to the family results in much less reporting to specialist speech and language workers later. By the time such children start school, they are at the same stage as every other child. That is the direction that we need to take.
	As the hon. Gentleman's report says, those in prison have huge communication difficulties, and that is because we failed earlier. Failure in communication skills frequently leads children and young people into lifestyles that they did not start off wanting to get into, but they end up in the juvenile justice system and then in prisons. Once we know that we can do something about that, we have no excuse not to do it. We have programmes that deliver the rigour and sustained activity that will transform children's lives and opportunities. We have no option but to use those intervention programmes to identify children early, and to address speech and language difficulties so that they do not become behavioural and other difficulties as the children grow older.
	I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, and I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister, because I believe that the Government will get hold of this issue and transform opportunities for millions of children in the future.

Annette Brooke: I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) not only on his review and his leadership, but on the persistence with which he has raised these issues since his election to Parliament, which has contributed to both the report and the Government's positive response.
	My eyes were first opened to the deficiency in this area more than 12 years ago, when I talked to parents whose children had just completed their schooling at a special school for those with mild learning difficulties. It became clear that if the children's speech, language and communication needs had been addressed at an early stage, some of them might well have gained access to mainstream schools, and their educational outcomes at 16 would have been very different. The consequences of not dealing with such issues in an appropriate and timely way are lost time and, it could almost be said, lost lives. We should consider the behaviour of children who are frustrated when they cannot communicate as they wish to, underperformance, and involvement in the criminal justice system with all that that implies. I sincerely hope that no more time will be lost, and that none will be lost in implementing the report's recommendations.
	The report identifies five key themes. Although—like the right hon. Member for North-West Durham (Hilary Armstrong)—I shall focus on early identification and intervention, I think it important for all five of those themes to work together to bring about the outcomes that we desire. In the short time available, I shall concentrate on just a few of the issues that they raise.
	First, it is important to remember that communication is a two-way process. While the needs of the child are central, we must take account of communication within the family, communication between nursery and teaching staff and the child, and communication in many other contexts. Sadly, features of today's society are contributing to basic communication problems: the lack of conversation between adults and adults, adults and children, and children and children, in the home and in play. That in turn derives from the tendency towards TV meals and time spent with television, DVDs and computers in the bedroom.
	At the more severe end of the spectrum of needs is the importance of not just early identification but appropriate follow-up intervention, both of which require a skilled work force. I particularly welcome the report's recommendations in those areas. Miscommunication is all too easy if, for example, a teacher interprets lack of eye contact as challenging behaviour, rather than picking up signals about special needs. We need a balance between specialist training and general special needs training. The latter is now belatedly being included in teacher training courses, but in my view it should have been tackled before we embarked on our main inclusion agenda.
	There should be clarity about when a specialist speech therapist is needed, and when the more generic approach of training teachers and early-years workers in specific skills will be sufficient. Clear assessment and planning must take place to ensure that there are enough speech therapists. I am sure that all Members have been visited by parents who tell them that a son or daughter should be having speech therapy, but nothing has happened throughout the term.
	It is all too easy to tick boxes, suggesting that a service is being provided, even when children are not being given the specialist therapy that they need for their particular conditions. I believe that all children with a given degree of speech impairment should have access to specialist nursery provision or to specialist services within mainstream provision, such as those provided by I CAN. Such services should be provided within reasonable travel distances, and consideration must be given to transport provision. Behavioural problems can so easily develop at an early age, threatening a child's whole future.
	I mentioned the two-way process of communication. Let me give a couple of examples to which I particularly relate. One involves sight-impaired children who do not have the appropriate text books in an appropriate format. Those need to be provided. How can such communication take place if there are no books in the appropriate format, particularly text books? On the hearing-impaired, I understand that some teaching assistants are not fully qualified in sign language. It is not just a question of having the technique of sign language; there needs to be an interpretation process as well. I am told that national vocational qualification level 2 in sign language is not sufficient for the interpretation of lessons. I emphasise the importance of this two-way communication process.
	Sadly, from personal experience I can relate to the remarks in the review, and the comments made in evidence, about the ping-pong between health and education budgets. I have often heard it said, "No, that's not up to us to provide; that has to come out of health money."
	I also relate to the issue of there being different boundaries. In my constituency, the boundaries between the children's services and the primary care trusts are not coterminous, with the consequence that much is not considered.
	The report makes important recommendations on commissioning, to get us out of these traps. I endorse—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid the hon. Lady has had her six minutes.

Sharon Hodgson: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and an honour to follow the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who made a typically thoughtful and considered contribution. I am glad that time has been found for this excellent report to be discussed before we break for the summer recess.
	I must begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) on his report. It is the culmination of a great deal of work, and his expertise on these issues means that it should be treated as an authoritative framework for improving the outcomes of children with speech, language and communication needs—SLCN. As always, his speech was an oratorical tour de force which demonstrated not only a broad range of expertise on this topic, but also an ability to articulate the challenges facing children and parents in a way that commands attention and urges action from those listening. I had the hon. Gentleman's support for my private Member's Bill on special educational needs—SEN—and I am thrilled that it has now received Royal Assent. I know what a powerful advocate he is for those children who face a tougher start in life because of their own unique needs, and I would like to repay some of his support by stating that I will help in whatever way I can to ensure that the recommendations of this report become realities.
	The five areas the report highlights are eminently sensible. I do not wish to make a lengthy contribution; instead, I shall look briefly at each of those five areas in turn, and highlight one or two recommendations that I believe stand out.
	It is clear that more needs to be done to establish the fact that "communication is crucial". There is something of an irony in that point. It is often said in this Chamber that it is the responsibility of those who have a voice to use it on behalf of those who do not. Although we all know that SLCN comes in many different guises and that it is often not directly linked to speech problems, I still think it worth expressing that well-used political mantra today, because to some degree that is what this report calls on the Government to do if we are to make further progress.
	I know from personal experience how difficult things are for a child with SLCN, and the frustrations and hurdles that they must face. Many Members will know from previous debates that my son, Joseph, is severely dyslexic. He did not start to speak until he was three. His problems, and those we have faced in order to try to get his voice heard—as it were—are just one example among millions throughout the country, but they are the ones with which I am most familiar, so I ask Members to forgive me if I use his story as a reference point on occasion.
	There is a strong case to be made, because it should be self-evident that without the ability to communicate clearly, the chances children and adults have to reach their full potential in life may be limited. The numbers of such adults and children are not insignificant; there are places in this country where more than 50 per cent. of pupils have some form of SLCN. More broadly, there are estimated to be more than 1 million children throughout the country with SLCN. That is why the recommendation to establish a communication council should be fully supported by the Government.
	I hope and expect that the opportunity that the report provides to do the things it recommends will not be missed. My attention was drawn to recommendations 5 and 7, which concern the provision of information. I am sure that hon. Members all know by now that I was lucky enough to be drawn second in the ballot for private Members' Bills and that my personal experience drove me to draft a Bill designed to support children with SEN. In my discussions with parents, charities and educational organisations, it became strikingly clear that without available and accessible information the path of progress would always be far more long and winding than is necessary. The consensus on that opinion and the conviction with which it is held make those recommendations stand out as particular priorities. Parents cannot make informed decisions about the education of their children without information, so we have an obligation to provide it if we are serious about raising outcomes for children with SEN and SLCN. I hope that the recommendations on information will be swiftly carried out.
	The case for early intervention is well established, and we know that investment in the early years of a child's education will reap rewards further down the line. Of course, the most important benefactor of those rewards is the child, but it is always worth pointing out to those who fund support services that money laid out early in a child's life can often be saved tenfold in later years. That is why I agree strongly with the charity TreeHouse, which says that there is a strong need for a cost-benefit analysis of effective interventions. I add my full support for each of the recommendations on early intervention. The remit of the Rose review has already been extended to look at the most effective ways of supporting children with dyslexia, and one hopes that there is no insurmountable reason why it could not be extended again to cover SLCN.
	The development of a child is a joint responsibility of the family and the state, which is why it is so important to ensure that services are developed with the family in mind. Thus, I welcome the third section of the report, which also contains recommendations relating to the work force, all of which are sensible not only because of the impact they could have for children with SLCN, but because of the positive impact they could have on tackling the wider challenges facing teachers, who do not feel adequately prepared to identify and then support children with SEN.
	I have raised previously in this House the fact that there is scope for increasing the content on both SLCN and SEN in initial teacher training. Recommendation 23 rightly states that the new masters in teaching and learning should almost certainly have a core module covering SLCN and wider SEN. That would provide a welcome sign that the potential that that masters offers for the ongoing professional development of teachers will not only be realised, but will be of vital benefit to all children.
	So much of our success in working with children comes when people are willing to work together, with the best interests of the child at heart. I am sure that Ministers in the Department for Children, Schools and Families will work closely with those in the Department of Health to try to ensure that no child is allowed to slip through the net. It is key that parents and schools should also work together and communicate with each other as they both monitor the progress of all children, not just those with SLCN and SEN. I know that that is usually the case.
	The last of the five areas into which the report is split focuses on ensuring consistency and equity for families. For too long, the provision for children with SLCN and other SEN has varied wildly depending on where in the country one lives. Joseph received speech and language therapy from when he was 18 months old when we were living in Gateshead. When he was seven, we moved to the London borough of Merton and that vital speech therapy came to an end, because Merton said that he did not need it as his speech fell within the "normal" range. We moved back to Gateshead, and Joseph was reassessed when he was 14 years old. Strangely, Gateshead's authority said that it thought he would benefit from speech therapy. As a parent, it is hard for me to come to terms with the fact that, as a result of my work and my moving around the country, he has lost out on seven years of priceless speech therapy. As a policy maker, I am annoyed and frustrated that this patchwork quilt of provision exists, and I believe it is up to this House to bring that shameful reality to an end.
	The wild variation in experiences, and the supporting figures, should not be perpetuated by a similar variation in provision and action. I was particularly pleased to note recommendation 39, which states that the Government should make available
	"as much data as possible...about the educational attainment of children... with SLCN".
	Not only is educational attainment important; other factors are also significant, including emotional and physical well-being.
	Clarification is required as to which groups the recommendations apply to. For example, one would assume that the report includes deaf and hard-of-hearing children, but that needs to be confirmed, and I hope that the Minister or the hon. Member for Buckingham will do so today.
	The beauty of the report lies in the fact that many of its recommendations appear to be so blindingly obvious. Its strength is in the way that it pulls together the different strands that need attention and spells out a clear and coherent plan for dealing with them. Of course, a strong and persuasive argument can appear to have been obvious all along, but the reader of this report will be left in no doubt about what needs to be done, and that is thanks to the hon. Gentleman's tireless work. His skill, intelligence and good-natured tenacity have ensured a first-class report, and I congratulate him again on his commitment. I promise him that I shall ensure that not only as many people as possible read this vital report, but that, more importantly, they act upon its recommendations as soon as possible.

Nick Hurd: My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) has long been a champion of those who struggle to communicate and this report does him enormous personal credit. He is also groundbreaking in pushing the Government to be bolder in going for earlier intervention and adopting the policies of prevention.
	I want to address my brief remarks to one specific section and that is young offenders, 7,000 of whom enter young offender institutions every year, two thirds of whom will reoffend at enormous cost to society. The key to getting them back on the straight and narrow, as it were, must lie in improving their literacy and social skills and their prospects of securing some employment in the future. We must be honest in recognising that these skills are not being picked up in schools, because far too many of these children are not engaged in the school process at all.
	To be fair to the Government, they are investing in this area. Spending on education in young offender institutions has risen from about £18.5 million a year in 2001-02 to something approaching £63 million in 2006-07. But the question is whether we are getting results from that investment. Are we paying sufficient attention to the evidence from the research of Professor Karen Bryan and others that perhaps two thirds of the inhabitants of those young offender institutions cannot engage with the education process because they simply do not have the literacy and communication skills required? Are we wasting money and time? It feels as though it is time to think again, because on the one hand we have the huge cost to society of reoffending and the growing cost to the taxpayer of education in these institutions, set against the relatively small cost of earlier intervention in speech and language therapy to ensure that more of these young people can access these programmes. The research of Karen Bryan and others, dating back to 2001-02, shows that reoffending has reduced by 50 per cent. in those small pilots of children who have benefited from speech and language therapy. That is a big number, and it suggests that we need to build on that research.
	We are getting warm words from the Government. There was a reference in response to this excellent report in the youth crime action plan, but the reality that has been brought out by other speakers is that the provision of speech and language therapy falls between Departments. There has been no systematic research on the impact of speech and language therapy on reoffending since 2005. I asked the Minister how many full-time therapists were working in the custodial estate and he did not know. I can tell him. He does not need to refer to the officials. It is one, and that is inadequate.
	There appears to be some paralysis in the system because the Government tend to take the view that provision should be driven at a local level, and my political instincts lead me to have some sympathy with that view. It is a good theory, but the problem is that it is not working in practice.
	Even if the Government cannot bring themselves to cut through the inertia and apathy by spending a tiny amount of money—speech and language therapy costs £33,000 a year across 17 institutions, so we are talking about a sum of less than £1 million that could make a difference—and to drive this from the centre, surely there is more that they can do in two key areas. As a bare minimum, we should be investing more in systematic research to improve our understanding of whether speech and language therapy can be deployed on a bigger scale in young offender institutions and in larger scale prisons.
	We need a bigger scale study of the impact on reoffending of wider provision of speech and language therapy. We see no movement from the Government on that at all, just inertia.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend poses legitimate challenges to Ministers. Does he not agree that if, at present, significant numbers of those communication impaired young offenders attend educational and training courses only in an entirely perfunctory and tick-box capacity and gain little or no benefit in the process, the Government should be willing, if not to increase overall resources, to top-slice the education budget in young offenders institutions and ensure that some of the money is used to good effect rather than to nil effect?

Nick Hurd: That is an extremely helpful intervention and reinforces the point that I was trying to make. We are spending £63 million a year on those institutions—£8,000 per pupil—and the fundamental question is whether that money is being spent wisely or whether a fraction of it could be diverted to improve the efficiency of that spending.
	At the very least, we should be investing in more systematic research and sending a much stronger signal to primary care trusts and the governors of these institutions about the need to identify and meet demand. It is difficult to add anything to the words of Lord Ramsbotham, a previous inspector of prisons, who said:
	"In all the years I have been looking at prisons and the treatment of offenders, I have never found anything so capable of doing so much for so many people at so little cost as the work that speech and language therapists carry out."
	Those words were uttered some time ago; the Government have not responded. I have to say to the Minister that the apathy on his Benches is failing offenders, failing victims and failing taxpayers.

Douglas Carswell: I welcome this debate, and salute my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow). He has done a very good thing. Members of this legislature ought to be willing to think and act independently. Regardless of what colour rosettes members of the Executive might wear, elected MPs should be willing to look at public policy problems in the round.
	Services for children with speech and language needs are not good enough. We have a real problem and I do not think that the status quo will do. With language therapy in particular, the provision does not seem to match the need. Unfortunately, I do not think that it is purely down to a lack of money. Generally, special educational needs provision is not good enough. The statementing process tends to be very confrontational and bureaucratic and, in my experience, quite discriminatory. It favours persistent parents and the articulate. In my experience, the hurdles that it creates trip up those who are most likely to stumble in the first place.
	The report is worth while and I agree with what it says. However, I am slightly sceptical on one or two points, as I fear that too much of the report addresses symptoms. Symptoms need to be addressed and to be tackled, but more could be and needs to be done to tackle the causes. The cause of the problem is that the resources that will by definition always be finite—resources are always finite in any system—are being allocated more by bureaucratic fiat than by individual choices. Only those who are able to tackle the bureaucracy can exercise choice. Having advised more than two dozen parents in my constituency about how to tackle the system, I am aware of just how dreadful it can be.
	I want to talk briefly about what I mean by addressing symptoms rather than the fundamental cause—the malaise. The provision of better information and advice is obviously needed—it is a good thing and we want it—but, in any system, when the end user is denied information that usually suggests that the system itself is failing. The system lacks accountability. When poor information is symptomatic of a wider failing or when the end user from any walk of life is kept in the dark and denied information, that is usually indicative of a wider unresponsiveness—that, too, is the case with special educational needs services.
	I wonder whether Google and the internet might not be better at providing information than any Government or state-run initiative. Informal networks of parents and self-help groups may already be forming and sharing advice on how to tackle the system. Rather than just providing information, we should be focusing on making the system more responsive.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham is right to recognise the unquestionable fact that there is a postcode lottery, but surely it exists because the system is unresponsive. There is a lottery because provision is unresponsive and comes from the centre. The service people receive is random because it depends on where they live—they cannot do much about it. If the system was more responsive and more tailor-made to the individual and the locality, we could solve the problem. That a postcode lottery exists is not an argument for more centralised target setting, but makes the case for making public services more responsive.
	Similarly, I am slightly sceptical when the report calls for officials to help to spread best practice. What report nowadays does not recommend that? Obviously, we want what works to be replicated and to replace what does not work, but innovation does not necessarily come from official champions and from the top down. In the age of Google, the point is that systems should allow best practice to replicate itself. If we are serious about allowing what works to be replicated and adopted elsewhere, the key is to make the system more responsive.
	I welcome the call for early action. In several of my constituency cases, months and even years have been allowed to elapse before the local education system responded. Young children have been badly let down. Had there been intervention, action and, as my hon. Friend said, identification at the age of two, three, four or five, rather than much later on, the life chances of those children would be much better. Lack of early intervention is yet again symptomatic of an unresponsive system.
	I have one or two ideas about what a future Government should do to tackle the cause of the problem—the unresponsiveness of the system. First, there would be great merit in allowing certain special schools the freedom to become special schools with academy status, which would allow them to develop to meet special educational needs as they see fit.
	Secondly, we need to review the statementing process. A friend of mine, Sir Robert Balchin, has suggested that we replace the statementing process with a special needs profile. Rightly or wrongly, many parents feel that statements are issued on the basis of how much cash is available. Clearly, if the body issuing the statement is the organisation that manages the budget for SEN provision, the way it does one of those things might affect its regard for the other. However, although I welcome Sir Robert's proposed change, I do not think it goes far enough. Money concerns alone do not explain the reluctance of some local education authorities to issue statements; dogma is at work, too.
	Finally, I wonder whether the lack of responsiveness that accounts for much of the problem that the report tries to address could be solved by giving the parents of children with special educational needs a new legal right. Could we enshrine in law a right that would allow them to request and receive control over their child's share of local authority funding—however the size of the pot was determined? If the child could not be provided with a speech and language therapist by the local authority, a better way of ensuring that it has what it needs would be to give its parents control over the money that is spent and that, miraculously, does not provide the outcome that they want. Parents of children with special needs have had a raw deal from public policy makers over many years. In part, that is explained by the fact that they have not had the articulate advocate that they now find in my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. However, it is also because they are a relatively small group who are spread across the country and, in some cases, marginalised. They cannot attract the attention of policy makers, although the issue might be higher up the political agenda if they were more concentrated in some of the marginal parliamentary constituencies.
	However, the upside is that the internet is having a profound impact on changing not only politics in general, but also the politics of special educational needs provision; it is raising the profile. The internet aggregates—it brings together people who have a specific interest in special educational needs—and it empowers people. The complex information and legal knowledge needed to make the system work is no longer the preserve of a few elite people. The internet breaks down barriers to entry. Through the internet, parents have a voice and do not have to rely on remote producers or politicians to speak up for them; they can speak for themselves. The internet gives the marginal a voice. In a post-bureaucratic age, that is how parents of children with special educational needs will be empowered. We need a public policy that reflects those trends, rather than one that attempts to frustrate them.

Tim Loughton: I am pleased that we have had the opportunity to debate the Bercow report. I congratulate the Government on commissioning it and all those involved in the extensive research that has gone into it. Some doughty campaigners for special educational needs and powerful advocates for those with speech and language difficulties have been involved in today's debate. Many of them brought their personal experiences to it, which has enriched it. I am slightly puzzled about why we are dealing with the subject in a topical debate on the penultimate day before the summer recess, given that the review was published on 8 July, and given that the Government gave a statement accepting the report's key recommendations, which we welcome, and promised a full implementation plan in the autumn.
	This is the 18th topical debate this Session, and the first one answered by Ministers from the Department for Children, Schools and Families. By far the most topical problem afflicting the DCSF is the turmoil surrounding the marking—inaccurate, delayed or otherwise—of this year's standard assessment tests, which were taken by 1.2 million 11 and 14-year-olds. As hon. Members have said, topically, in the past few days, the newspapers have been full of stories of administrative problems, computer blunders and appalling marking. Topically, thousands of children are about to go on their summer holidays not knowing how they fared; their reports will not contain the details of their marks. Most topically of all, in the past few days, the Secretary of State has suggested that the ETS contract could be terminated, but the Minister for Schools and Learners said the opposite just yesterday.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to stop the hon. Gentleman, but we ought to devote our time to the subject before the House.

Tim Loughton: I shall immediately do that, of course. I reiterate that we very much welcome the review.

Hilary Armstrong: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton: With respect, I shall not, because the right hon. Lady had longer for her speech than I have for mine, and I do not get injury time for taking interventions.
	I urge the Government to adopt the proposals in the review as comprehensively and as speedily as possible. The subject of speech, language and communication problems, and, more generally, special educational needs among children, has over the years been raised extensively by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, not least by members of my party, and not least by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. Indeed, he set up the commission on special needs in education in December 2005, under the excellent chairmanship of Sir Robert Balchin, who published his report in the autumn of 2007. Clearly, the view is, "If you want an important job done, ask a Conservative Member of this House."
	The statistics on speech, language and communication needs among children are stark. In 2007, about 7 per cent. of five-year-olds entering primary school across England—that represents nearly 40,000 children—had significant difficulties with speech and/or language, but in more disadvantaged areas, about 50 per cent. of children and young people had speech and language skills of a significantly lower level than those of other children of the same age. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) has mentioned the alarming figures for those in the youth justice system who have had difficulties with speech, language and communication. Clearly, we are missing a trick by not investing in prevention in that regard.
	We all welcome the acknowledgement in the review that early intervention is key; many Members have mentioned that, including the right hon. Member for North-West Durham (Hilary Armstrong). Too many children suffer from a postcode lottery in the provision of services, and there is still a shortage of specialist providers. As I pointed out in the Westminster Hall debate held just after the review was launched, we need
	"greater joined-up working between education and health, and on the joint working and ownership of the work force, because speech and language therapists might be employed by health services, local authorities, schools, charities or social enterprises, or might be working privately."—[ Official Report, Westminster Hall, 9 October 2007; Vol. 464, c. 17WH.]
	There is a vicious triangle at work. Often, people who come to my surgery with cases in which speech therapy support is required have already gone to their education authority, which has said, "Oh, that is not for us. It is for health." They then go to their primary care trust or hospital and are told again, "Oh no, that is not for us, but for children's or social services." I am sure that other hon. Members have experienced that, too. That is what I call a vicious triangle. The problem does not go away if we pass the buck. The longer we pass the buck, the bigger the problem with that child might become. We need much better joined-up working.
	The DCSF and the Department of Health's joint response to the review is encouraging, and it was good to see the Secretaries of State for both Departments here earlier in this debate. It is essential that schools, health services, health visitors, children's centres, Sure Start and others do more to identify children with speech, language and communication difficulties as early as possible. As we identified in our submission to the review, when it comes to speech, language and communication needs, as with most areas of special education, early intervention is essential. Estimates suggest that some 15 per cent. of children at pre-school level need the early intervention of a speech and language therapist. The work done with those very young children is vital, and can in many cases be relatively short-lived and totally successful.
	In most cases, there seems to be good co-operation between the agencies involved pre-school, and we support the proposal that more work be done through children's centres—an approach being pioneered by the charity I CAN. However, too many parents have reported encountering substantial difficulties with school-related assessment and provision. In particular, they mention two important problems. First, when children at pre-school level are identified as needing help, adequate speech and language therapy assistance is often not available. Secondly, when no identification has been possible pre-school, assessment and help is often difficult to obtain and slow in coming. There is also a problem with the transition between primary and secondary schools.
	Research by Scope revealed that only 22 per cent. of respondents to its survey had been assessed by the age of three, and that local authorities had markedly different policies for the provision of communication aids. About a quarter of respondents did not receive an assessment until they were 16 or older. As a Scope report went on to show, if disabled children and young people are unable to develop their communication skills during childhood, it puts them at a significant disadvantage in adult life. It makes it even more likely that disabled people with communication impairments will be excluded from work, education and social opportunities, and will be unnecessarily dependent on others. Action must be meaningful and sustainable, and there must be follow-up assessments and ongoing monitoring. Not providing that, and not intervening early, is clearly a false economy, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have agreed.
	I should like to mention a point to which the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson) referred. She has done much on the issue, and I congratulate her on her Bill receiving Royal Assent today. The excellent autism charity, TreeHouse, has called for a proper cost-benefit analysis of effective interventions, and we support that call. It believes that there is a need for an evidence base that details the impact of speech and language therapy on the development of children's communication and language skills, and that helps families to ascertain which interventions work best. TreeHouse makes the important point that parents and carers are the experts on their children, and need to be listened to and supported more. That suggestion was supported by I CAN, which played an important part in the review. Its excellent "Make Chatter Matter" campaign helped to put the issue on the political map in the first place. I am pleased that many of its suggestions have been taken up.
	On speech and language therapy training, there is some evidence that although an adequate number of speech and language therapists are being trained, there are not enough posts available for them. They therefore seek other employment and can often be lost to the profession, which is an obvious waste of resources. That disjunction is likely to be remedied if recommendations on assessment and funding are accepted.
	We believe that the Government need to go further on some aspects of the report, particularly on statementing and special schools. Where there are serious language disorders, or where language problems are part of a child's wider spectrum of special needs, parents too often find that the statementing process is too adversarial and drawn out. In too many cases, after considerable expenditure of time and money, it results in little or no help for their children. We believe that the system needs to be streamlined and made easier for parents to navigate and less adversarial.
	The whole special needs profile system needs to be changed. We recommend that assessment for all special educational needs be undertaken by independent professionals in contracted consortiums, working to objective criteria. The process would be triggered by a professional from education, health or social services, or by a parent assisted by one of the above, and would result in a special needs profile replacing a statement. The profile would be based on clearly defined support categories, and speech, language and communication needs are likely to encompass one or more of those categories.
	We believe that the ideology of inclusion has caused the most serious problems for special needs children and their parents. The loss in the past few years of no fewer than 9,000 special schools places is a disaster that must be remedied. Many children with complex speech, language and communication needs cannot be educated adequately in mainstream schools, but it is clear that those with less complicated needs can thrive in mainstream schools if there is a dedicated unit, staffed by an adequate number of professionals. It is also useful if all staff receive some training on SLCN problems. Will the Minister commit to a moratorium on the closure of special schools, at least until we can get a closer idea about current SEN provision, particularly as it relates to SLCN?
	Most of all, I agree with the point made by the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). We welcome the proposals for giving greater support to parents. Evidence suggests that many parents of children with SLCN feel too often that they have been left without much understanding of their child's needs and how they can assist.
	The report is a good one. We congratulate the Government on commissioning it, and hope that they will enact its recommendations as soon as possible.

Kevin Brennan: In the brief time left, I shall attempt to respond to some of the points raised by hon. Members. I welcome the speech made by the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) and once again congratulate him on the report. He made a number of points. I understand perfectly the one that he made about help with communicative devices; we will consider that issue as part of the child health strategy in the autumn. He pointed out the much wider relevance of the issue to antisocial behaviour, public health and the economy.
	At the end, the hon. Gentleman said that he would die happy if his report were implemented, although he does not want to die just yet. I hope that he does not, because in 18 months we would like him to have a look at how we have done and whether we have implemented his review's recommendations. We are happy to invite him to do that if he is willing.

John Bercow: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for making that request. I would be delighted to do that, with support from colleagues and outside experts.
	English is an additional language for 75 per cent. of children at Churchill Gardens community primary school, and 55 per cent. of the children there are on free school meals. Is it not a terrific tribute to the school that, through great leadership, a language-rich environment and a powerful focus on communication, it is getting terrific results? That just shows what can be done in a mainstream school with good leadership.

Kevin Brennan: Indeed it does. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in getting that point in.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Hilary Armstrong) has a long-standing commitment on this issue, and she spoke with passion. She was one of the early adopters of early intervention as a means of trying to bring about social justice and change society. She gave us examples of good practice and the consequences of not identifying problems and intervening early.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) told us about the importance of specialist services and the problem of buck passing between health and education. I hope that she welcomed the commitment from the Secretaries of State for Health and for Children, Schools and Families, who were here today; the report was commissioned jointly.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson), as her Bill has received Royal Assent. She is common sense on legs and her speeches in the House often bring us down to earth with practical and real-world examples of the consequences of our debates. She pointed out the importance of knowing the costs and benefits of early intervention and showed us how thoroughly she digested the content of the report; she will hold us to account in making sure that we implement it. She referred to her personal experience and her son Joseph and said that we needed more consistency across the country in the provision of these services. She asked specifically whether the report covered deaf and hard-of-hearing children. The answer is yes.
	The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) pointed out the increased investment that there has been into the education of young offenders. He went on to make a serious point about the importance of making sure that young offenders in custody get the appropriate support. However, it is also important that we meet their needs holistically, and the hon. Gentleman was churlish and unfair to suggest that there was apathy about that in the Government; after all, we are here debating this issue because we commissioned the report. We will address those issues through the youth crime action plan. It is better to address all, not just some, of young offenders' needs. In its forthcoming offender health strategy, the Department of Health will also consider the speech and language needs of young offenders.
	In a disappointingly partisan contribution, the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell) gave us a glimpse of what is behind the veil of Cameronism when it is pulled aside; no doubt we shall see more of that in time. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) made a rather partisan opening to impress his Whips, but he quickly moved on. However, I do not know how he can believe that not allowing children with speech and language difficulties an appeal against exclusion from school will help them; perhaps he will advise the House. However, he went on to discuss more substantial issues and I welcome his welcome of the commitment of the Secretaries of State, who were both here today.
	Time is very short. Being able to communicate is absolutely fundamental, and we are glad to welcome the report.
	 It being one and a half hours after the commencement of the proceedings, the motion lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to the Temporary Standing Order (Topical debates).

Housing and Regeneration Bill (programme) (no. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Housing and Regeneration Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 27th November 2007 (Housing and Regeneration Bill (Programme)):
	 Consideration of Lords Amendments 
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption at this day's sitting.
	 Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement. —[Alison Seabeck.]
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 253, Noes 175.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Andrew MacKinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wonder whether you might be able to use your good offices to persuade the Department for Communities and Local Government to release from the Vote Office the Thames Gateway annual report, which was supposed to be published in June. I am told by the Vote Office staff that it is in the cellars here, but they have not been given the say-so by the Department to release it. It is material to this legislation: section 45 refers to the interface of the Homes And Communities Agency with the urban development corporations. It really is sloppy that the report has not been made available in the Vote Office this afternoon. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright), looks a bit bewildered; I hope he will use his good offices to get the civil servants to release it pretty damned quick.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to be able to explain what is happening and why, but his remarks will have been noted. Perhaps if it is in the cellar, it is maturing, like good wine, and we shall see it before too long.

Orders of the Day

Housing and Regeneration Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 27, 28, 31, 203, 228, 231, 238, 241, 245 to 250 and 267. If the House agrees to any of these Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Objects

Lords amendment : No. 1.

Iain Wright: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 64, 201, 202, 205, 207, 208, 212, 224 to 244, 264 to 267, 269 to 272, 278, 281, 283 to 287, 289, 291 to 293, 296 to 298, 300 to 303, 305, 308 and 311.

Iain Wright: This group of amendments relates to part 1 of the Bill, which is concerned with the creation of the Homes and Communities Agency. We had some excellent debates in Committee on the role of the agency, its powers and its relations with other bodies. That debate was continued, with knowledge and expertise, in the other place, so I believe that the Bill has been much improved during its passage through Parliament. The world has changed in economic terms in the six months since we debated the Bill in Committee, but I would like the Bill, and the Homes and Communities Agency, to be as future-proof as possible, and the amendments help to establish that.
	Lords amendment No. 1 adds the term "good design" to clause 2, which concerns the objects of the Homes and Communities Agency. That is a welcome step and puts good design at the heart of what the agency will seek to achieve, and into the context of sustainable development. There was a strong debate in Grand Committee in the other place about the importance of good design. Design costs are a relatively small proportion of overall build costs; however, the costs of poor design are high. It is becoming ever more apparent that good design attracts people, investment and activity to places. Conversely, poor design and poor quality act as a real barrier to prosperity and sustainability. Planning policy statement 1 states:
	"Good design ensures attractive, usable, durable and adaptable places and is a key element in achieving sustainable development."
	The importance of good design, therefore, is already enshrined in national planning guidance. However, I am pleased that design is now in the objects of the agency, acknowledging its importance and allowing the considerable powers and resources of the agency to be used for the purposes of good design.
	The very first amendment that we discussed in the Public Bill Committee was one tabled by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), whom I am delighted to see in his place, and it was about improving the accessibility of new housing, particularly for the disabled or for the increasingly older population. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the future demographics of this country. He stated that over the next 20 years, the number of disabled and older people will increase by roughly two thirds. About 329,000 disabled people are living in housing that is not suited to their requirements. I remember vividly what the right hon. Gentleman said in Committee. He may not have thought so, but it had a huge impact on my thinking, and I am keen to help. That is why I—as honorary patron of the Access Association for the north-east—and I hope the right hon. Gentleman as well, welcome Lords amendment No. 2, which will clarify that the term "good design" includes design
	"which has due regard to the needs of elderly persons and disabled persons".
	A key theme of the deliberations on part 1 of the Bill throughout its passage has been the relationship between the agency and its key partners, particularly those in local government. Critics of the Bill and the agency have often stated that the HCA will be a large, centrally driven quango, imposing top-down targets and riding roughshod over the needs and wishes of local communities. That is precisely not what we wish to achieve through the agency. It was never our intention. We have always maintained that a key test of the agency's success will be the manner in which it partners local authorities in the delivery of new housing and the regeneration of communities throughout England.

Martin Horwood: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for his comments. Let us take a hypothetical situation in which the Government take account of the housing downturn, and the fact that the original target of 3 million homes is now clearly inappropriate. If the HCA were to stick to that target, and the Minister for Housing implied that the Government might want it to, would local authorities have the right to challenge that number?

Iain Wright: I am not entirely certain what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. What is very clear, as I said in my opening remarks, is that economic circumstances throughout the world have changed in the six months since we last looked at this legislation, but that the fundamentals of the housing market in this country have remained the same. There has been a huge imbalance between demand for and supply of housing for something like a generation. One of the things discussed in Committee was the ability of the agency, using skills and expertise at the disposal of local authorities, to allow councils to step up to the plate to provide skills and capacity to ensure that the strategic housing market assessment that local authorities undertake allows them to build the houses that their area requires.

Lembit �pik: I should like to press the point made my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). Although I agree with what the Under-Secretary says about what we want local authorities to be able to do, the question is one of authority. I ask him the question again: can local authorities effectively challenge edicts from the HCA under the revised form that the Bill will take once we have passed these amendments?

Iain Wright: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that point. In this group of amendments, we are keen not to have, in his words, an edict. We are trying to promote as far as possible, as we have done throughout the Bill's passage, positive partnership relations between the local authority in question and the agency.
	On that point, our intention with regards to the partnership working between the agency and local authorities was made clear with the launch of the new Local Government Association protocol at its conference a couple of weeks ago. I hope that it will reassure the hon. Gentleman to learn that it states:
	The aim will be to reflect the shared endeavour between councils and central government to secure more and better homes that are both affordable and in places where people want to live, to regenerate and renew our most deprived communities, and to build councils' strategic capability to achieve these ends.
	I suggest that several significant amendments in the other place have reinforced the intention further.
	Lords amendment No. 51 would require the agency to consult
	such representatives of local government as the HCA considers appropriate about how the HCA pursues its objects
	and to publish a statement on how it proposes to comply with that requirement.
	Clauses 13 and 14 form an important part of the relationship between central Government, the agency and local authorities and its operation in practice. They cover the Secretary of State's power to make designation orders and the power of the HCA to act as the local planning authority.
	Legitimate concerns were raised in Committee and in the other place about the wide-ranging powers in part 1, especially whether the agency would railroad development throughI use the phrase of the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) in Committee, although I do not agree with it. I hope that hon. Members know that railroading was never the Government's intention. We have always stated that local authorities are best placed to know their areas' needs. I hope that that directly addresses the point that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) made.

Martin Horwood: The Under-Secretary comes out with fine phrases, but the reality on the ground is different. Local authorities find themselves unable to challenge housing allocations, which regional assemblies and regional spatial strategies hand down. It seems likely that the HCA will be capable of issuing the same sort of downward edict, to use the phrase of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik).

Iain Wright: I disagree. As I said, there will be a close, strong partnership and a positive relationship between the agency and local authorities to provide skills, expertise and capacity to ensure that local authorities can ascertain the strategic housing needs in their area. We are not considering something only for London and south-east every region in the country has huge need of housing, especially affordable housing. The agency will play a key role in working closely with a local authority in an area, regardless of where it is. It will ask what the local authority needs, including skills and expertise, to step up to the plate, and what funding and other things it requires. We had an interesting debate in Committee about infrastructure, and what would be needed to facilitate housing development in a specific area.
	We have always stated that local authorities are best placed to know the needs of their areas. However, in somealbeit rarecircumstances, the development and regeneration challenges that some local authorities face may mean that they require additional assistance and support to achieve the objectives. To ensure that that is done properly, it is right and proper that a full set of powers is at the Secretary of State's disposal.
	I said to hon. Members that considerable safeguards were already in place for those powers. However, the Government are keen to address concerns that were expressed in the House and in the other place. So as I said in Committee, each area will be set out in a designation order made by the Secretary of State and, in deciding to exercise that power, she will need to be satisfied that designating an area and conferring local planning authority powers on the agency is justified and reasonable. However, Lords amendment No. 8 makes it clear that the Secretary of State, in determining whether it is appropriate to exercise those powers, also needs to be satisfied that making the order is likely to improve the effectiveness with which local planning authority functions will be discharged. That is an important additional test. I hope that the House is reassured that it is explicit in the Bill that the Secretary of State needs to demonstrate clearly that exercising the powers would provide additional capacity and bring added benefit to an area.
	We have also addressed concerns about the consultation process in providing a designation order, and the role of the local authority in that order. Under the clauses as originally drafted and debated in Committee, the Secretary of State was required to consult all local authorities that had an interest in the area that it was proposed to designate. In addition, several specific new controls have been established. They should reassure the House about the exercise of those powers.
	First, Lords amendment No. 10 requires the Secretary of State to publish a draft of the order and her reasons for making it, including, of course, her reasoning as to why the designation order would be more effective. Secondly, Lords amendment No. 12 adds to the listwith bitter regret, I concede defeat on the list principle to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, following weeks in Committeeof persons whom the Secretary of State must consult when considering designating an area. The list will include not only those who reside in an area but those who carry out business there. I therefore suggest that the amendments give the local government communitythe local authorities and the people most likely to be affected by a designation orderfar greater ability to influence the decision about whether to designate an area and the form and powers that designation may take.

George Young: Lords amendment No. 8, to which the Under-Secretary referred, states that
	the Secretary of State must... be satisfied that making the designation order is likely to improve the effectiveness with which the functions of the local planning authority for the area or part are discharged.
	Who will discharge those functionsthe local planning authority or the HCA?

Iain Wright: It will probably be the HCA in those circumstances. I hope that that reassures the right hon. Gentleman.

Lembit �pik: I think that the Under-Secretary was busking it in his response to the right hon. Gentleman. I am not sure that the Bill provides for what the Under-Secretary claims, but perhaps he will get some inspiration during the debate. I want to ask him about consultation. Although I welcome the improvements constituted by the extended lists of individuals and organisations that must be consulted, how can he be confident that the mere requirement of consultation will result in a potentially obstinate HCA taking the advice? How can he be confident that the consultation will not simply be window dressing that changes nothing?

Iain Wright: There are several answers, which, I hope, will reassure the hon. Gentleman. First, he used the term an obstinate HCA, and I do not believe that that will happen. As I said, the HCA's culture will be one of, How can we help? and, What positive aspects can we bring to the table? That certainly reflects our debate in Committee. Secondly, the amendments that were made in the other place increase transparency and accountability. I shall explain why that is the case.

Grant Shapps: I understand from the many amendments that we are considering that the Under-Secretary and his team recognise that the HCA was in danger of taking on powers that could be used, perhaps by a future chief executive, in a way that local authorities might find overpowering. However, does the Under-Secretary believe he has gone far enough to ensure that a future chief executive and a future Secretary of Stateof any partycould not use the powers in a way that could fundamentally undermine local democracy?

Iain Wright: We are fairly happy with what we have achieved. The Bill already contained significant powers and controls. Clauses 13 and 14, especially the provisions for a designation order and ensuring that the agency is a local planning authority, include considerable safeguards. As a result of concerns that the hon. Gentleman raised in Committee and anxieties that were expressed in the other place, we have gone further. We have strengthened the Bill, and I believe that that was appropriate.
	Let me deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) about how we ensure appropriate consultation, a matter to which we do not simply pay lip service. Lords amendment No. 21 requires the preparation and publication by the agency of a statement of local involvement, which sets out its policy for involving local authorities and people with special knowledge or relevant experience in the exercise of functions conferred on it by the designation order. The amendment also requires that, when the agency sets up a committee or sub-committee for the purposes of exercising functions that a designation order confers on it, or appoints a member to such a committee or sub-committee, it must inform every local authority for the designated area and invite them to suggest one or more candidates for membership. Those additional strengths improve transparency and accountability.

Andrew MacKinlay: Clause 45 allows the HCA to appoint an urban development corporation to act as its agent. Surely that vehicle will be the norm, because if we totally nationalise that function and set up a committee, it will be a million miles from local communities. Is it not likely that clause 45 will be used a lot, so that there is a local urban development corporation within the footprint of the local authority, which will have lost the planning powers?

Iain Wright: No, I tend to disagree. What will happen will depend on the local circumstances of the area. It may be that a UDC will not be used, but what I would hope is that what happens comes about as a result of consultation, partnership and negotiation between the local authority, relevant bodies and the agency. The true strength that the provisions in the Bill provide is that flexibility and support, as well as considerable resources, to allow local circumstances to dictate what is needed.
	The other place also asked whether sufficient parliamentary scrutiny could be afforded to any designation order by the negative resolution procedure, which was modelled on previous drafting of legislation, particularly the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. However, on reflection, the Government believe that it is more appropriate, given the exceptional nature of the case if there were to be a designation order, that each such case should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Therefore, Lords amendments Nos. 202, 207 and 208 require any designation order under clause 13 to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
	There was significant debate, both in Committee and in the other place, about the HCA's powers to fund unregistered providers to provide low-cost home ownership accommodation. I was very much struck by the argument advanced in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), whom I am delighted to see in his place, namely that the arrangements under the Bill as drafted did not achieve a level playing field with respect to regulatory arrangements for registered and non-registered providers when the agency provides and funds low-cost home ownership.
	To address my right hon. Friend's points, Lords amendments Nos. 33 to 36 help to level that playing field. In particular, Lords amendment No. 33 places a requirement on the HCA to consult the regulator when funding such low-cost home ownership accommodation. That should ensure that the burden of complying with the regulator's standards is not significantly different from the burden of complying with the HCA's contractual requirements. I hope that that move is welcomed by my right hon. Friend, as it certainly has been by key stakeholders such as the National Housing Federation.
	This group of amendments also contains a number of minor and technical amendments, to ensure that the Bill works effectively and to provide consistency and clarity of language. They include amendments that add greater protection to common land, in response to concerns raised in the other place, and the deletion of a number of clauses in part 1 relating to private streets. Following the consideration of points raised in the other place, the Government accepted that those clauses were not needed and that removing them would improve the clarity and workability of the Bill.
	As I mentioned earlier, economic circumstances have changed in a remarkable and dramatic way since the House last considered the Bill in March. The Homes and Communities Agency will provide the flexibility and the strength to cope with changing times, as we aim to increase the supply of housing and to regenerate our communities in a well-planned, well-designed and sustainably responsible way. The amendments improve on what was in the Bill, allowing the agency to work effectively and closely with local government partners and others. I commend them to the House.

Grant Shapps: I thank the Minister for taking on board some of the concerns that were raised in Committee and on Report. First, the design-and-build concept behind the Homes and Communities Agency is important. We had quite a long discussion about that in Committee. It is absolutely appropriate that the quality of house-build, rather than a simple goal of building X million homes by Y, should be a fundamental principle. Houses have to be built to a quality that is of use to their inhabitants.
	I remember speaking in Committee about the concerns in my constituency about the 10,000 new houses being built, 2,000 of which have already been delivered, whose design quality sometimes lets the new inhabitants down dramatically. Some of the problems that we have already seen in those new communities have become clear. I am delighted that the Minister has taken on board some of those concerns and designed an entirely new objective for the Homes and Communities Agencythe so-called fourth objectivewhich turns out to be design and build. I welcome that development.
	Also to be welcomed is Lords amendment No. 2, which deals with provision for elderly and disabled people. Again, I remember the contributions that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) made in Committee to a very good-natured discussion on the issue that, at the time, led to no great result. Everyone agreed that something needed to be done, but nothing was going to be added to the Bill to ensure that objective. I am therefore delighted that it has returned from the other place, a note having been made about design for the elderly and disabled. That is a crucial part of the now amended Bill that is to be welcomed.
	The powers of the Homes and Communities Agency were the subject of discussion not just once or twice, but all the way through the previous stages of the Bill. The agency will clearly be a phenomenally powerful body, with the ability to take on powers from local authorities, to build, to provide planning permission to build, to become the landlord or the managing agentin fact, to do everything. One wonders why we will even need local authorities or developers in the future if the Homes and Communities Agency ever exercises its powers in that manner.
	I am therefore pleased that there are some measures in the amendments that assist in at least reassuring the House that that is not the intention of the Bill. The Minister assured us in Committee that the Bill was not designed to create a super agency that would use those powers. However, no concessions were made at all in Committee, which suggested that that would be written into the Bill. I am therefore pleased that the Bill has come back from the other place with those amendments.
	It is right that we should all be concerned not to have an agency out there with powers that overstep the mark so that in future, if not today, a chief executive and a Secretary of State or a Housing Ministerperhaps the Minister himselfmight use them in a way counter-productive to local democracy. That is the point around which the greatest disagreements still revolve. It is clear to people on the ground that establishing a strong powerful agency, with the capacity, which the HCA still has under the Bill, to build against the wishes of local people and, if it so desires, to fail to take into account local concerns, will, albeit perhaps unintentionally, set the power of the agency against the power of local communities.
	As the Minister knows, that has been the Opposition's overriding concern throughout the passage of the Bill. If we are not careful, we are in danger of passing a Bill that provides too many centralised powers. Some of the amendments address some of those concerns, as did a meeting that I held last week with the new chief executive of the Homes and Communities Agency, Sir Bob Kerslake. He is clear that his remit should be to work in conjunction with local authorities and other bodies in providing housing.
	Again, my concern is with what happens not today or over the next few years, but beyond that. The Bill is still too slanted towards the presumption that powers can be, if not necessarily exercised, then perhaps threatened under the clauses that remain, creating an imbalance between local authorities, other bodies and registered social landlords, and the Homes and Communities Agency. However, I am pleased to see that the Secretary of State must now specifically endorse decisions made by the Homes and Communities Agency, where powers are intended to be taken by the agency. That, too, is a welcome development.
	There are simply too many amendments in the Billand even in this groupfor me to be able to do them all justice. This brings us to the central concern behind the way in which the amendments have been tabled. The Minister might describe them as minor and technical, and in many cases he might be right, but certainly not in all. The Government have tabled 715 amendments to the Bill since Second Reading

Iain Wright: Seven hundred and seventeen.

Grant Shapps: The Minister has kindly corrected me. That is an extraordinary number. Perhaps a couple of new ones have been added at the last minute, which I was unable to count. It is extraordinary that we should now be in the position of needing to approve 313 amendmentsI invite the Minister to correct me if I am out by one or twocoming back from the Lords, many of which are included in this important first group dealing with the powers of the Homes and Communities Agency. Had there been more consensus on this matter at an earlier stage, we might have been able to avoid this late rush of 313 amendments from the other place.
	I am pleased, however, that the Minister has referred today to giving way on the so-called list principle. Those of us who served on the Committee will remember that the answer to almost any point put to the Ministerno matter how practical or real the problem involvedwas met by the simple objection, We can't add that to the Bill because there will be a list principle that will be ruined by adding a list of items. Yet, as has already been mentioned, there is now a fourth objective for the Homes and Communities Agency, which further adds to the list. In fairness to the Minister, I am delighted that he has characteristically given way on that simple principle, and conceded that it is possible to improve a Bill by adding to a so-called list of items.
	It is a pity, however, that many of those changes could not be made until the Bill reached the other place. I wonder why the Government had their conversion on the road to Damascus in the other place, and not in Committee in this House. Perhaps the Minister will explain why. Good arguments were being put forward from both sides in Committee, from housing experts on the Back Benches. Their arguments seemed perfectly erudite, yet they simply were not accepted by the Minister at the time. However, when they were put forward in the other place and by outside organisations, they suddenly became entirely acceptable. Had we listened to the convincing arguments put forward by hon. Members during the earlier stages of the Bill, we could have improved it much more quickly, but we are now having to consider an enormous number of amendments in a very short time. We should have debated them correctly in the right place and at the right time, and improved the Bill at an earlier stage. I ask the Minister to reflect on that experience.

Nick Raynsford: I shall perhaps surprise the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) by saying that I agree with him in one important aspect. He referred to the surprising number of amendments to which we have been exposed since the Bill began its parliamentary passage some eight months ago, and I am afraid that this is one illustration of a theme that I have spoken about in other contextsthe increasing tendency for legislation to be produced in too much of a hurry and without sufficient preparation, so that it requires a great deal of amendment during its parliamentary passage. That is not a helpful trend, and I hope that in the years to come we will move away from that practice.
	I thought it slightly odd, however, that the hon. Gentleman complained about that and then welcomed the fact that a number of changes were being made to the Bill. He cannot have it both ways. We are making a lot of changes to the Bill, and I believe that they have generally made a considerable improvement and are therefore welcome. As he will remember, many of them were introduced on Report in this House, before the Bill went to the Lords, so this is not simply a case of our receiving amendments at this late stage.
	To return to first principles, I strongly welcome this part of the Bill and the establishment of the Homes and Communities Agency. At a time when there is widespread recognition of the importance of more effective action to achieve sustainable development and mixed developments involving the public, private and voluntary sectorsand of the need to ensure that we meet the very considerable housing needs that remain unmet, to which the Opposition have frequently referredobviously we should welcome the creation of an agency with significant powers to help to deliver the homes that are needed. It was notable that the interventions from the Liberal Democrats were all about preventing development. That was a telling indication that their instinct is leading them not to meet housing needs but to prevent housing and development that would meet those needs.

Lembit �pik: Let me just say to the right hon. Gentleman that I love appropriate development. Our concern is that there needs to be appropriate devolution of the decision making behind that development. Our questions are therefore not so much about preventing development as about ensuring that local authorities are genuine partners in the process, rather than junior partners subjugated to an all-powerful HCA.

Nick Raynsford: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman's view that local authorities should be genuine partners, and it is quite clear that that is exactly what the HCA, under the leadership of Sir Bob Kerslake, wishes to achieve. He has been mentioned on several occasions today, and he has impressed almost everyone who has come into contact with him since he was appointed. He is clearly committed to the two goals that we should all share: to take more effective action to meet housing and regeneration needs, and to do so in a way that is inclusive and involves proper partnerships with local authorities, housing associations and the private sector. I wish him every success in his daunting task as chief executive of the new agency.
	I am pleased that the agency is coming into existence, and that a number of potential defects in the legislation have been addressed. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright) for the specific amendment in response to my concerns about the lack of a level playing field in respect of low-cost home ownership development. With that, I welcome this group of amendments and hope that they will be endorsed by the House.

Lembit �pik: There can be no more heart-warming sight than the admission by a Government Minister of his own human fallibility. In making such an admission, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright) has shown a humble divinity rarely observed at the ballot boxI mean the Dispatch Box. I always refer to it as the ballot box; I shall be in trouble for that.
	We all know that the Minister does not portray himself as all-powerful, but concern has been consistently expressed on the Opposition Benches that the Homes and Communities Agency could appear all-powerful from below, at local authority level. For that reason, this group of amendments is encouraging in two ways. First, it explicitly increases the responsibility of the HCA to consult in particular ways. Secondly, it requires precise specification by the Secretary of State of the remit in a number of situations. We were calling for those provisions in Committee, but the Minister seemed somewhat resistant to them at the time. Let us not be churlish, however, because he has now taken them on board after some fairly tough negotiating in the other place. A large number of the votes went the way they did despite, rather than because of, the Government's willingness to accept the proposals put forward at the time. Nevertheless, the fact that this group of amendments has been embraced by the Minister shows that the iterative processwhich I think works pretty well if people are genuinely focused on a good outcomehas once again served us well.
	The fact that there are 770 new amendments

Iain Wright: Seven hundred and seventeen.

Lembit �pik: The fact that there are 717 amendments, as the Minister bragged before, means that there is more than one for every day between now and the next general election. We could therefore have a Homes and Communities Agency advent calendar with an amendment behind every door, and on the final daythe day of the electionwe could have the jolly face of the Minister to lift our spirits as we go to vote. All kinds of possibilities reside there [Interruption]especially if one has a vivid imagination.
	If the legislation is based on principles, let me deal with a principle that concerns what we do in this Chamber, where we increasingly talk about principles, but insert detail. I realise that a number of amendments tabled by the Liberal Democratsand, indeed, the Conservativeshave been quite detailed, so I make this admonition to us all: perhaps we should be a bit more courageous in approaching the sort of issues that these amendments are designed to clarify and reduce the body of legislation we put forward by increasing our reliance on guidelines rather than on specific edicts. If we did so, the legislative process would be more transparent and we could make the Bill more flexible and avoid unintended consequences, which, with the best will in the world, this extensive piece of legislation is likely to bring.
	I praise the obvious capabilities of the first chief executive, Bob Kerslake, but I also believe that it is a bit dangerous to rely entirely on the abilities of the first person appointed to a job. One should not plan legislation on the basis of the best person likely to do the job, but on the basis of the worst case scenario. That is not to be cynical; it is simply to protect the public from things going wrong as a result of human error. For that reason, although I have no doubt that we will have an excellent first chief executive, I am slightly worried that we have not thought sufficiently about the worst case scenarios, as we discussed them in Committee. Nevertheless, the amendments go a long way towards improving the situation. I modestly point out that no fewer than 24 Government amendments in this group are a direct result of the sage work of my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place, who were persuasive in convincing Ministers of the merit of our caseor, where that failed, fortunate in winning the vote.
	I want to make three main points. The first is about the permitted purposes and types of development in the HCA remit. Lords amendments Nos. 6, 7, 16 and 17 are relevant and help a great deal to resolve issues previously discussed as a matter of concern. I am also encouraged by amendment No. 47, which will help to create a level playing field. It will make it difficult for the HCA to alter the terms of reference in varying or revoking a determination; and it will not be able to override the provisions relating to the events and principles according to which the exercise of its powers should be predetermined. That is a really important change, because it puts to rest one of the criticisms often made of such legislation, allowing consistency from the point at which the determination is made right through to the point at which it is acted on.
	The most important issues in the group are raised by Lords amendments Nos. 39, 40, and 42 to 46, which clarify what the authority can do in terms of entering into agreements with providers of social housing, including arrangements for sharing equity uplift between the authority and the provider. Again, we discussed the matter at some length in Committee, and I recall being concerned that the phrasing did not necessarily mean that the authority's remit would be conducive to improving the attractiveness and accessibility of shared equity schemes. We all think that shared equity schemes provide a sensible way forward, offering a very important additional rung in the housing ladder. I believe that in this area, the Government have provided something that is genuinely helpful; I give great credit to the Minister for not seeking to revoke a provision that we put him under some pressure to agree to.
	Finally, I agree with the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) that there is much in this group of amendments to debate, but that it is not plausible for us to detain the House unduly by examining every amendment in detail. I have been putting forward a brush-stroke analysis of the amendments, but the mood music is right. The Minister has taken into account a number of our concerns. Let us hope that we have not over-regulated in our efforts to make the authority a bit more receptive to the importance of a genuine partnership working environment with local authorities and other providers of housing.

Andrew MacKinlay: I want to deal briefly with some amendments in the group. I particularly welcome the amendments that introducefor the first time, I believethe duty on authorities to have regard for good design. We have needed that for a very long time. So many housing developments are, at best, bland; and some are the product of obviously lazy initiatives by the developer, whether it be a private company or a statutory body. All too often, the design comes off a shelfa shelf on which design has not been reviewed for many a year. I believe that it is possible at minimal cost to unlock the talent among people capable of designing quality housing. Housing can be aesthetically pleasing and it is extremely important to be aware of it. Even in hitherto poor, working-class areas, original design can make a great statement of confidence for the future. Local communities are interested in that, as it is one aspect of building a sense of community, which Government Departments are also trying to promote. I do not wish to exaggerate, but this is important.
	I do not suppose that it will be possible to get judicial review when a bland housing development is produced, but it will henceforth be a duty on the Homes and Communities Agency, as well as on local authorities, to be cognisant of the need for good design. I hope that, gradually, we will be able to build up the quality of design and take heed of aesthetics and the attractiveness of buildings. That will also be a good statement for this generation of planners. In my view, not enough has been done to move on since the 1960s and 1970s.
	I also want to deal with the amendments that have most preoccupied the House. Over the past four or five years, my local authority area has endured many of the provisions that are proposed as suitable for the HCA. Some years ago, the House passed an order that created the Thurrock urban development corporation, which took away many planning functions from the local authority. As a Member of Parliament, that caused me a dilemma. I believe in local authority and local decision-making on planning issues, planning applications and proposed developments, but on the other hand, I want the Government to achieve their legitimate aspirations to produce a good reservoir of low-cost housing to rent or buy and to create some prestigious housing, too. That attracts remuneration to a local authority area in the form of high council taxes and other incomes derived from quality and high-value residential development. Social mix is another desirable outcome. I was persuaded that we needed this power, which is why I support the amendments this evening. If the Government are determined to drive through their housing construction policy throughout England, where housing supply is desperately needed for our constituents, the amendments are necessary.
	In the light of my experience over the past few years of planning powers being transferred from the local authority to another bodythe urban development corporation in my case, and the HCA under the amendmentsI urge the Minister and his new chief executive Kerslake not to use the local authority as the handling agents. It seems to me that all the chemistry in that regard produces frustration of the Government's objectives, and a dilemma for the local authority officers as to which master they serve. If the planning functions are to be dealt with by a committee of the HCA or an urban development corporation, they should receive and process the applications and send the letter consulting the authority; the local authority should not process those applications, as it is an inevitable cause of frustration and an added level of bureaucracy. I offer that advice to the Minister and through him to the HCA chief executive.
	If planning powers are to be designated and transferred from the local authority to another body, it should be done not just by use class order or according to the size and scale of the proposed developmentthe number of hectares or residential unitsbut by geographical area. Development control and enforcement are indivisible from the wider picture. Although the HCA might not want to get involved in what it might consider nitty-gritty issues, all too often enforcement is the other side of the coin of planning development. If we want to create a good housing development, but an industry is non-conforming or arguably has not got planning permission, enforcement action or relocation by the HCA or its committee and by the local authority go at different speeds. There is a danger that the lines will be blurred and objectives will not be achieved.
	I am prepared to elaborate on the matter, with the Minister and whomever he likes, following the experience of the Thurrock urban development corporation, which was, and still is, a good idea, but has been frustrated by a lack of clarity as to who has what powers and the division of loyalties among the officials and professional staff between it and the local authority.

George Young: I hope to make the shortest speech on this group of amendments.
	When the Minister opened the debate, he was kind enough to say that my speech on one of the first amendments had made a major impact on him. His demeanour at the time concealed that, and the amendment was dismissed. However, I am glad that it had a delayed impact and the point about design was taken on board.
	The bulk of the debate has been about the so-called nuclear option, when the Secretary of State makes a designation order and the HCA takes over the planning powers of the local authority. Clearly, there is tension between the political imperatives of Ministers and the HCA, who want things done and development achieved, and the legitimate local interests of the local authority. One must make a judgment. When the Conservatives were in power, we set up development corporations, and I took some of the orders through the House. I therefore strongly defend Ministers' ability to intervene.
	I want to press the Minister on when he will intervene and the circumstances set out in his helpful letter to those who served on the Committee. He wrote:
	However in some, admittedly rare, circumstances the regeneration challenges faced by some local authorities means that they need additional help and support.
	I hope that he will confirm that that is the case, and that it will not be a question of money. Intervention should not take place simply because the HCA has resources that the local authority does not have. The issue should be genuinely one of capacity to develop, rather than of access to resources. If resources alone were holding the matter up, one could simply argue that they should be given to the local authority. There should be some reason other than lack of access to resources for the power to be activated. Will the Minister confirm what has been virtually taken for grantedthat, as far as he knows, his Secretary of State is not hatching any plans to make a designation order in respect of any part of England in the relatively near future?
	At the beginning and end of his speech, the Minister said rightly that the climate had changed. There was an implication that the amendments under consideration were a response to that change, but I hope that he will not make that case. The climate has changed, and if he is to respond to that, he will need a much more dramatic response than that suggested in the many amendments under consideration. I hope that his Department is considering a range of initiatives that will help to address that change, because, welcome though the amendments are, they are not an adequate response to it.

Iain Wright: I shall respond to hon. Members' comments about the amendments.
	The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), who seemed to welcome the moves made with regard to the amendments, mentioned three points. First, he made welcome comments about our move with regard to design, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) referred. Secondly, he reiterated what he said in Committee about the relationship between the agency and local authorities. Thirdly, he mentioned the number of amendments717tabled by the Government since the Bill was introduced.
	The whole House would agree that this is an important Bill on a vital topichousing and regenerationand it is important that we get it right. I make no apologies for making changes and listening to points made by Members on both sides of the House, and by Members of the other place, to ensure that we get the legislation right. As I have tried to make clear throughout the Bill's passage, I am in listening mode. I have tried to take on board the points about sustainability made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods), those about design made in another place and referred to in Committee, and those about accessibility made by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). I have taken those and other points away for consideration, and tabled amendments. Therefore, I do not agree with the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield because I believe that there has been an element of political consensus to ensure appropriate scrutiny, and the Bill and its provisions have been much improved as a result.

Stewart Jackson: Surely the Minister will concede that it is deeply unsatisfactory that the bulk of the time available to debate the Bill on Report was taken up with relatively arcane discussions of the housing revenue account. In that respect, the vast majority of the amendments were not even debated.

Iain Wright: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, although I understand his comments with regard to the arcane features of the housing revenue account. I do not want to be ruled out or order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is important that the financing of council housing is appropriately debated. It was a major topic of concern, certainly to my hon. Friends.

Lembit �pik: I happen to agree with the specific concern of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson). Will the Minister assure us that if we have inadvertently built in weakness to the Bill as a result of the compression of time and lack of consideration of an enormous number of amendments, he will secure Government time to ensure that we can right those wrongs, either in Statutory Instrument Committees or, ideally, on the Floor of the House? We all want the Bill to work, but there will almost certainly be unintended consequences arising from our inability to test aspects of the Bill on the Floor of the House prior to its implementation.

Iain Wright: I understand what the hon. Gentleman has said and I respect his views, but I repeat that a fair proportion of the amendments tabled in the other place were a direct response not only to his good self, but to amendments tabled by Members on both sides of this House. I consider that the Government have listened and responded, and that as a result the Bill is much tighter and displays a real political consensus that was not there before. I said at the end of Third Reading that it was a much better Bill following the scrutiny applied by all Members in Committee, and I stand by that.

Grant Shapps: May I press the Minister a little further? He has almost congratulated himself on listening, which is, of course, very welcome. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) made the same point. However, given the number of amendments tabled, would it not have been better to listen at an earlier stage? The amendments could then have been scrutinised properly in Committee, and we would not have had to deal with 274 amendmentsI think that is correct; I know that the Minister will correct me if I am wrongon Report.

Iain Wright: In many instances, we had to resolve to take amendments away and think about how they could be enacted. The amendment on tolerated trespass is one example. I know that I may be ruled out of order if I refer to other groups of amendments, but the proposals relating to the European Court of Human Rights, homelessness and eligibility for housing involved complicated issues and required time for reflection. I think that the handling of the Bill in both Houses has greatly strengthened its provisions, and has made the HCA sufficiently strong and flexible to deal with concerns about increasing supply and regenerating communities in England.

Margaret Moran: I agree with my hon. Friend. In Committee, when we were discussing the establishment of this important organisation, he repeatedly offered to take the amendments away to consider them, and I am very pleased that they have returned to the House in their current form. Does he agree, however, that it is unfortunate that, largely because of what the Opposition were doing, we devoted almost all our time to this issue and did not spend enough time discussing the Tenant Services Authority? I feel that we could have focused more on the empowerment of tenants, and I hope that we shall move on to the subject swiftly this evening.

Iain Wright: I see that you are poised to pounce like a cat, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall be careful to remain in order.
	The subject of design was raised by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield and my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, and I agree with both of them. The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield may be surprised to learn that I think local planning authorities should be more robust in rejecting planning applications that do not step up to the plate. My hon. Friend saidI think I quote him correctlythat at best some housing developments are bland, and that some suggest lazy initiatives on the part of developers. I would go further: I consider some developments depressing and demoralising.
	Throughout the Bill's passage, I have said that the current system is short-term and expensive for the public purse. If we build boxes or rabbit hutches now, in 20 or 30 years we shall need substantial amounts of public money to deal with the resulting problems. I do not want someone to stand at this Dispatch Box in 2040 saying that we must deal with the design and planning errors of 2010 or 2015.

Margaret Moran: Many of us hark back to the good old days of Parker Morris standards. We know that good design has been achieved in the past. Can my hon. Friend assure us that, if the Government purchase existing developments in order to meet our housing targets, those properties will meet high design standards, their quality will be no lower than we would expect of our affordable housing stock, and their design will last for generations, as it will need to?

Iain Wright: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. As she will know, we recently announced that 200 million would be given to the Housing Corporation so that it could buy empty homes during the current economic downturn to ensure the continuation of supply and development. I believe that the additional safeguards in the Bill relating to design and accessibility will help to achieve the objectives to which she has referred.

Andrew MacKinlay: Will the Minister give way?

Iain Wright: I am keen to proceed to the second group of amendments, but I will give way.

Andrew MacKinlay: I welcome the Minister's comments. Will he take this opportunity to encourage local authorities to take more advantage of their powers to demand good facing materials, and also not only to use but to enforce their powers relating to landscaping conditions? That is often an area of neglect: after their imposition, such powers are not enforced.

Iain Wright: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. As I said at the outset, the current framework provided by planning policy statement 1 and, in particular, PPS3 makes it clear that local authorities should deal with planning and design. It is true that landscaping is sometimes an afterthought when it ought to be taken into account at the start of the development process. The HCA will ensure that the Academy for Sustainable Communities can provide the necessary expertise, helping to increase skills and capacity in relation to a range of planning, building and landscape functions. I hope my hon. Friend agrees that that is a positive step.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) described the amendments as encouraging, but made the reasonable point that we should not produce legislation based on the personality of the first chief executive. I do not think that we have done that. I think that we have a very strong first chief executive in Sir Bob Kerslake, but I also think that the framework established by the Bill will ensure that that will continue.
	The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield repeated a point that he had made many times in Committee about the relationship between the HCA and local authorities. I believe that Lords amendment No. 51 goes a long way towards dealing with his concern about local government involvement by ensuring greater transparency and accountability. It sets out a clear framework enabling the agency to consult local government representatives so that they can implement the agenda together. I did not detect any welcome for that provision in his comments, but I am sure that he welcomes it none the less.
	The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire was right to use the phrase nuclear option in relation to designation orders and ensuring that the HCA was the local planning authority. We consider that orders would be made in extremely rare circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman also repeated a direct question that he had asked me in Committee: he asked whether we had any immediate plans to ensure that these powers would be exercised. The short answer is no, as it was in Committee.
	I detected a general welcome for the amendments. I hope that the House will accept them, because I believe that they make it easier for the HCA to improve housing supply and regenerate communities in England in a sustainable and well-designed way.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 64 agreed to [some with Special Entry] .
	After Clause 68

New Clause

Lords Amendment: No. 65.

Iain Wright: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 66 to 168, 203, 204, 209, 211, 245, 263, 268, 276, 282, 294, 295, 299, 304, 306 and 309.

Iain Wright: This group of amendments is related to part 2 of the Bill, which establishes the new social housing regulator. Before I come to the amendments, I would like briefly to update the House on important developments to the regulator since the Bill left us to go to another place following the Third Reading debate in March. First, the regulator has a new name. During the Bill's passage through this House it was known as the office for social tenants and landlordsor Oftenant. Without exception, nobody liked the name. It has now become the Tenant Services Authoritythe TSAwhich better reflects the organisation's core regulatory function of protecting tenants. Secondly, the two senior appointments to the regulator have been made. Anthony Mayer is the first chair and will bring a wealth of experience to the role, given his excellent track record in social housing, local government and the financial sector. Peter Marsh is an excellent choice as first chief executive; his background in the fields of registered social landlords and local authorities will mean that he recognises the need to ensure tenants receive a high-quality service. Finally, the House should be aware of our recent announcement that we would like to see at least two of the positions on the TSA board filled by people with direct experience of being a tenant. Any regulatory system that professes to put tenants at its heart has to give tenants a say at the highest level. With these board appointments, that is precisely what we intend to do.
	I would now like to discuss an issue that has occupied us since the Bill's introduction: cross-domain regulation. As we have made clear from the start, we are fundamentally committed to expanding the regulator's remit to cover local authority housing. This would be consistent with the recommendations set out by Professor Cave in his report, Every Tenant Matters. I believe this commitment became even clearer when the Government's draft legislative programme for the fourth Session was published in May, as it included a community empowerment, housing and economic regeneration Bill that would deliver, among other things, cross-domain regulation.
	However, during the passage of this Bill there has been strong cross-party support in both Houses for taking an enabling power in the current Bill. This would enable us to implement cross-domain regulation through secondary legislation, rather than through the route of a fourth-Session Bill. I am not convinced that this would be a particularly advantageous method of achieving the shared goal we all want. It would not deliver cross-domain regulation any faster, as it will be complicated to draft the provisions whatever legislative route is chosen, and it would limit the opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise what will be an important and complex piece of legislation. However, it is also clear that Parliament has shown its preference. The argument that the regulator's culture would develop and be defined if it only covered RSLs at the outset and there was no commitment in the Bill to include local authority social housing were strongly advanced in Committee and in the other place. On the basis of that strength of feeling, we brought forward an enabling clause on Third Reading in the other place so that the TSA's culture and operating approach would be defined by the commitment to regulating both RSL and council house tenants.
	The power contained in the new clause in Lords amendment No. 75 is unavoidably wide given the range of relevant legislation that will need to be amended. I am somewhat surprised that the other place was content with its broad scope. However, its broad nature is necessary, because it would be counter-productive to Parliament's wishes if we were to forgo the opportunity to include cross-domain in this Bill only to find that we had drafted an enabling clause too tightly. However, Lords amendment No. 203 requires that the power will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in Parliament, and we intend to conduct a full public consultation on the draft regulations before they are laid before Parliament. This is a significant development, and one that I believe the whole House will welcome. It will mean that council tenants will enjoy the same protections and support from the regulator as housing association tenants without the need for a further Act of Parliament.
	In a similar veinI see that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) is in his placethe Government have always been committed to the development of well-managed and financially viable community land trusts. As I announced in April, we intend to consult later this year on how we can help to develop the community land trust sector further and overcome some of the barriers. We intended to consult at that stage on whether there should be a legal definition of community land trusts, but in view of the cross-party support in both Housesled most eloquently by my hon. Friendwhich strongly urged us to use the opportunities provided in this Bill to help support CLTs still further, we have accelerated this timetable to give a definition of community land trusts. Lords amendments Nos. 66 and 67 define CLTs. In drawing up this definition, we have worked closely with the CLT movement, and I am grateful for its positive and constructive input.
	Part 2 of the Bill concentrates on raising the standards of housing services for tenants of social housing. A key part of achieving this objective is greater tenant empowerment, with better access to meaningful information to hold their provider of housing to account. Lords amendments Nos. 69, 70, 103 and 124 to 127 are about complaints and guidance. It has never been anticipated that the job of the regulator would be to address the bulk of tenants' complaints; that is the responsibility of landlords themselves, through their complaints procedure, and of the housing ombudsman. However, we have also always acknowledged that the TSA needs to be responsive to evidence from tenants and others about systematic failures by a provider, and to use that evidence to trigger regulatory intervention where needed to raise tenants' standards or improve financial viability or governance. Lords amendments Nos. 103 and 124 to 127 amend clauses 190, 212 and 213 to achieve this objective explicitly. They require the TSA to issue guidance specifically relating to complaints about the performance of providers. The guidance must set out the procedure to be followed in making a complaint, the criteria to be used by the regulator in deciding whether to investigate, and the periods within which the regulator will aim to inform complainants of the result of complaints. The TSA will be obliged to consult tenant representatives before issuing this guidance. Lords amendments Nos. 69 and 70 also require it to include in its annual report a general description of the complaints it has received during the year and how it has dealt with them. This would improve transparency and accountability.
	As part of tenant empowerment, we believe passionately that tenants should have the opportunity to be involved in the regulatory function. This is at the heart of part 2 of the Bill, with such measures as the requirement to consult tenant representatives on standards and guidance. I have already mentioned our wish that at least two of the regulator's board members should have experience and direct knowledge of being a tenant. However, we are still keen to go further. Lords amendment No. 71 therefore inserts a new clause in the Bill to ensure that there is a statutory duty on the TSA to promote awareness of its functions among tenants and, where appropriate, to consult or involve them in the exercise of its functions. The new clause also requires the regulator to publish a statement describing how it will fulfil these duties. These additional statutory responsibilities have been warmly welcomed by key stakeholders, including the National Consumer Council, the Tenant Participation Advisory Service and the National Federation of ALMOs.
	Debate in both Houses on part 2 of the Bill rightly concentrated on the appropriate balance to be struck between the wish to increase tenants' standards, allowing the regulator appropriate powers to raise those standards and the fact that registered social landlords are independent bodies with responsibility for managing their own businesses. I have been aware at all stages of the Bill's passage of concerns regarding regulatory creep or the passporting of policies from the Secretary of State to registered providers. The regulator must minimise interference and not misuse its powers, and it must act on the basis of evidence and of real need. With these broad aims in mind, we have responded to concerns that the major enforcement powers should be exercised only in the event of serious problems. Accordingly, Lords amendments Nos. 141, 142, 147 and 155 to 162 amend the regulator's enforcement powers of management transfer, transfer of land, amalgamation, restrictions on dealings and removal or suspension of an officer. These enforcement powers could only ever be used after an inquiry, and their use would also be subject to the various other protections in the Bill against disproportionate regulatory intervention. Nevertheless, these amendments have provided further reassurance by removing so-called breach of standards as grounds for use of these enforcement powers. We have also required that the regulator must obtain consent from the Secretary of State before using them.
	In addition, we have addressed the concerns expressed in Committee by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) that the fees set by the new regulator might be excessive. With Lords amendment No. 76, the Bill now requires the TSA to seek the Secretary of State's agreement to the principles on which fees are set. That is a move from the original process, whereby the Bill required the regulator to consult the Secretary of State on those principles.
	Lords amendments Nos. 108 to 119 relate to the inspection of registered providers. The Audit Commission inspects the overall management performance of all large housing associations over a certain period, and that has helped the overall and broad increase in standards, but given the new framework, in which investment and regulatory functions are being split, with the latter concerned with risk-based approaches, things can be done differently. Unlike the somewhat mechanical and cyclical current system, whereby inspections take place in a very similar way regardless of the risk across providers, the regulator will determine when an inspection is needed and what its scope should be. The aim is specifically to allow the regulator to pick up on things such as serious concerns about a provider's performance as a result of information it collects or concerns raised by tenants and others about a specific estate.
	Lords amendment No. 108 requires that the TSA must engage the Audit Commission to conduct inspections related to housing management functionson standardsunder clause 191. We do not wish the Bill to give rise to a plethora of different inspectorates, as we believe that would be unhelpful, confusing and counter-productive. However, other bodies, such as a major accountancy firm, for example, may be used to investigate governance or financial concerns, or anything that does not come under clause 191.
	We have also responded to concerns raised in the Commons Committee stage about the disposal consents regime. Registered social landlords are currently required to seek the Housing Corporation's consent for the disposal of any land. Lords amendment No. 89 ensures that where a non-profit registered provider wishes to sell a home that is let under a secure tenancy, it can do so only to another non-profit registered provider. Some of the protections of a secure tenancy rely on the status of a landlord as a public sector landlord or registered social landlordor non-profit registered provider, as they will be known under the Bill. We do not wish to see a home let under a secure tenancy transferred to a non-profit making registered provider, as that would be contrary to this part of the Bill's philosophy of protecting social housing tenants. The amendment makes that clear by explicitly prohibiting such a disposal. Lords amendments Nos. 90, 95, 96, 101 and 102 would ensure that disposals need only the regulator's consent for social housing. Disposals of land not including social housing will not require the TSA's consent.
	Much like the group of amendments on part 1, this group also contains a number of minor and technical amendments designed to ensure that the Bill's clauses work properly in practice. For example, the group includes amendments to restrict the TSA's information-sharing powers, in response to concerns raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Lords amendment No. 78 arises directly from concerns raised in Committee stage by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire that a requirement of the High Court to be the arbiter of an appeal against the decision of the regulator in respect of registration or deregistration would be, Overkill and extortionately expensiveI think that that is a direct quote. I agreed in Committee to go away and look at the matter, and we therefore tabled an amendment in the other place to see whether there could be a viable first-tier tribunal route. We see advantages in terms of lower costs and a reduced burden for smaller registered providers. The amendment therefore allows the Secretary of State, by order, to transfer the functions to the first-tier tribunal.
	I apologise to the House for taking some time in addressing the amendments in part 2 of the Bill. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran), who touched on this in her intervention, I hope that the House will agree that they go a significant way to improving the Bill. They are an important part of the Bill, because they allow us to achieve our objectives: giving all social tenants more choice and a greater say over how their homes are managed; eliminating unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy; protecting public investment; and, crucially, improving standards for tenants. I commend the amendments to the House.

Grant Shapps: Again, I broadly welcome this group of amendments, despite the fact that they come too thick and fast, and too late in the process for the liking of Conservatives. The Minister will be interested to learn that we did not object to the idea that the office for social tenants and landlords might be known as Oftenant, rather than the Tenant Services Authority, which for some reason does not roll off the tongue so easily. He decided on his own to make an amendment to the name.
	On the substance, we had a long debate in Committee on the cross-domain regulation of Oftenant or whatever its new name; it has not been born yet, but already its name has been changed. It was strongly felt on both sides of the House that the idea of having a regulator that regulated only registered social landlords and did not regulate other social landlords, including local authorities, made nonsense of the purpose of providing fair regulation across the social sector. I welcome the Minister's U-turn. He mentioned in response to the previous group of amendments that I had forgotten to welcome some of them, but I do welcome them, because U-turns are nearly always welcome in this regard.
	It was curious that we could not get these changes in direction a little earlier, because all the way through the passage of the Bill there has been a compelling case for doing all this at one time. I do not accept the Minister's arguments that it would be as complicated, or even more complicated, to describe these things in the primary legislation because lots of complicated secondary legislation would be required; such an approach clearly has to be more straightforward than introducing an entirely new Bill to provide exactly the same circumstancesthe single regulator, whatever its nameacross all social housing. Council tenants deserve nothing less than such provision; there is no reason to separate this into two. I am made to wonder what the Government will now do, given that they have announced a pre-Queen's Speech legislative programme in which they will legislate on this matter. Presumably, there will be one fewer piece of legislation or a gap in the programmeI am not sure which. I welcome the U-turn, although it could have come a little sooner. That would have allowed us a little more time to debate it, but, as I say, I think that both sides of the House agree on the measure.
	There is also significant agreement on the welcome inclusion of a legal definition of community land trusts. I know that the Minister is aware of my interest in this subject. I had the pleasure of visiting a CLT self-build in Rock in Cornwall, about which I have spoken in this House previously. I found a community that was building its own homes; it was a do-it-yourself community land trusta DIY CLT, to add more initials to this already complicated area. These individuals were leaving work at 5 pm and going to the CLT to build their own homes. I went there thinking that perhaps they had commissioned architects to build the homes for them using all the best principles, but they were physically constructing their own homes on evenings and at weekends.
	The No.1 problem that those soon-to-be residents of the CLT had was that nobody in the finance world understood who they were and what they were trying to do, so for a long timea year, in factthey had battled to try to secure the finances for this thing called a CLT. Despite the fact that the financial institutions had an RSL helping them with the process, they simply could not get it into their minds where this fitted into the housing regime. When I put these points to the Minister on Report and, perhaps less forcefully, in Committee, he clearly told me that defining a CLT would add to the list principle that he most strongly rejected at the timehe has since changed his mind on that.
	That practical example alone, as well as contact with many others who are now attempting to start their own CLT, convinced me that a legal definition, a framework, put in place by this House, which would help those who want to pursue the ultimate goal of a community based around the concept that people could live on a piece of land that would stay in common ownership in perpetuity to the benefit of those who came after them, has to be a good one.
	The principle that land tends to be such a vast amount of the cost of any housing, even after a housing downturn, means that it must be right for this place to legislate a framework, a description, of what a CLT might mean in reality, and enable it, for example, to describe itself on a local basis. It is a classic example of what might be described as an enabling piece of legislation by Parliament, which can then be interpreted in the best possible way for the local community. I simply mean by that that the clause, which I am pleased to see is largely as we proposed it in Committee and now accepted by the Minister, will allow people locally to decide their own rules for the CLT. For example, it might include a commitment that the houses in the trust would remain for the use of people with local connections. Thus, in Rock in Cornwall, where it is now phenomenally expensive for someone brought up there to move into a housea situation that is reflected in various parts of the countrythe CLT might say in its local rules that the housing must always go to somebody who was either born there or had a strong connection with the area, or whatever other criteria it wishes to put in place.
	I welcome this national framework, matched with sensible localised rules, which means that CLTs will be accelerated in years to come. I look forward to working with the Minister, perhaps even going on a joint visit to one of the pilot schemes that has been set up in his constituency in Hartlepool to see these in action. In our desire to solve Britain's housing crisis, CLTs could point the way forward. I welcome the measure in particular because his response in Committee was so discouraging and demoralising. When I proposed a clause that was almost identical to the one now in the Bill, the Minister said that did not want to prescribe too overtly the various mechanisms by which the Homes and Communities Agency might help to deliver housing. He was also concerned about the future-proofing of such legislation. The Committee divided on the amendment, which was negatived, so I welcome the change of heart. I will be delighted to work with him to ensure that CLTs help to become the solution to the nation's problemto move from the test-bed and into reality, on a scale that is large enough to make a significant difference to communities throughout Britain who would greatly appreciate the outcome.
	The Minister talked about tenant empowerment and, broadly speaking, I welcome and agree with some of the changes, which may not go far enough, but I respect the fact that we do not have the time this evening to get into the detail that was possible in Committee.  [Interruption.] The Minister says that we do, but unfortunately we do not because the programme motion on which we divided gives us only until a certain hour. None the less, I do not want to be churlish and it should be said that the addition of greater tenant empowerment is to be welcomed. Of course it must be right that tenants play an active part in the way in which their communities and housing is run. Of course, almost by definition, the quality of housing must be improved when one allows the very people who have most to gain from good housing to be actively involved in its management. Therefore, these are welcome amendments, which we support.
	Enforcement and control of the registered social landlords is yet another area covered by these many amendments where there has been a move in the right direction. I well remember the shock and concern of RSLs, as expressed through the National Housing Federation. They were running around frightened that the Bill would, perhaps even inadvertently, have the effect of partially nationalising a charitable element of housing by producing so much ministerial and state control over the RSLs that they ceased to operate freely, external to Government organisations. That concern was not just my own. I am sure that Treasury Ministers must have shared the concern that 35 billion or 38 billion of debt could end up on the Government's balance sheet at a time when I am certain that, for reasons of economic downturn and perhaps competence or otherwise, it would not have gone down well in No. 11 Downing street.
	The Minister quite bravely argued at an earlier stage that it was not necessary to water down the aspects of the Bill that dealt with the potential control of RSLs by the Secretary of State. But, again, I am pleased to see the amendments, without which we would end up in a situation where the flexibility, the entrepreneurship, the dynamic that makes housing associations work in providing housing would have been to some extent, or perhaps to a great extent, choked off, unintentionally or otherwise, by the Bill. Therefore I welcome the changes.
	I also welcome the realisation that if the Secretary of State was to ensure that appeals all went to the highest court in the land, the system would be snarled up to such an extent that it would be unworkable. The fact that a first-tier tribunal could be provided as a way of transferring responsibility from the Secretary of State for such decisions is to be greatly welcomed.
	These are all good common-sense amendments to the Bill, which the Opposition welcome, not least because more than one of them were proposed by us and voted against by the Government. However, it is a pity to have literally had to reach the last hour or two of the Bill before having the opportunity to reflect on the changes. I say again to the Minister that better drafting, more thought, less dithering, or whatever it takes to have the right measures put in place early on, would have meant that this House and Parliament in general would have had a better opportunity to scrutinise the legislation and make it better for everyone who will rely on it.

Nick Raynsford: I welcome the further amendments that we are considering, but I must correct the impression given by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) that these are the sum total of the amendments to the Bill in respect of the status of housing associations and the risk to their classification as non-public sector bodies. In practice, the main amendments that safeguarded the position of housing associations were carried on Report in this House before the Bill went to the other place, following a detailed debate on these issues in Committee.

Grant Shapps: I understand and appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's comments, but does he agree that even though the amendments were made on Report, the three hours that we had to consider them was completely inadequate?

Nick Raynsford: I will not debate the adequacy of Report stage, given the large number of amendments. I have expressed a view elsewhere on that subject and I alluded to it earlier in our proceedings this evening. I was simply correcting the implication that we had the amendments only at this late stage, because much of the work was done at an earlier stage. I welcome that because the Bill as originally drafted had defects, which I outlined on Second Reading and in Committee, and I welcome the positive response of my hon. Friend the Minister who listened and considered carefully, and who introduced amendments.
	It is important, given that the National Housing Federation has been referred to, to put on the record the comments made by David Orr, chief executive of the federation, who wrote in this week's  Inside Housing:
	The fact that ministers were prepared to alter the bill, which is due to become law within the next few days, shows them in a very positive light. It proves they are willing to listen and, where appropriate, change their minds.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for showing exactly those characteristics in the way in which the Bill has been improved.
	I particularly welcome the further change in respect of the anxieties among registered social landlords that they could technically find themselves subject to enforcement proceedings by the new authority simply because of a failure to meet a standard. The possibility that a transfer of land or amalgamation or transfer of management powers could be justified simply on the basis of a failure to meet a particular standard has now been removed by the amendment to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred earlier, so there is a further safeguard there.
	My main concern is that a new authority is coming into existenceI welcome the change of name, as the new one is much better than the previous onewith considerable expectation on it. I share the view about the competence of the new chairman and the new chief executive. Anthony Mayer was, of course, a distinguished former chief executive of the Housing Corporation, so he is very familiar with the processes of overseeing the work of housing associations. I am sure that he will bring to his new role as chairman of the authority considerable insight, expertise and acumen, which will benefit it greatly. Peter Marsh, the deputy chief executive of the Housing Corporation, comes in with similar expertise as the new chief executive.
	My worry is that the new authority will be expected to do an enormous amount in a relatively short time. Not only will it have to create the new regulatory regime for housing associations but it will, perfectly properly, have to extend that to cover local authorities and arm's length management organisations, too. That is a good objective that also imposes additional burdens. It will have to put in place complex procedures for ensuring that tenants are empowered, engaged and consulted on the procedures. At the same time, it will have to pay heedthis will be a strong priority in the current market circumstancesto the need to ensure the viability of social housing providers, who might well be under a certain pressure because of the impact of the credit crunch.
	We know from the story of the Ujima housing association at the end of last year and the beginning of this year how extremely important it is to have an effective regulatory regime that can intervene quickly and effectively to reassure lenders and tenants when there has been possible mismanagement or a failure by a registered social landlord to maintain proper standards and when, as a consequence, there is a risk of those tenants losing their homes or of the association going into insolvency. In that situation it is clearly necessary for the new regulator to act quickly, decisively and effectively. I believe that the powers created in legislation enable that to happen.
	Inevitably, there is a tension between acting swiftly and effectively and ensuring a proper consultation and opportunity for everyone to have their say, including the body concerned and its tenants. In its early months, the new authority will face some serious challenges in ensuring that it has effective machinery in place that will command the confidence of the lenders and ensure the integrity of social housing providers while, at the same time, putting in place all the other procedures for effective tenant engagement and responsiveness to tenant aspirations.
	I hope that we have an implementation timetable that will ensure that all those tasks can be done in an orderly but effective manner. It would be a tragedy for social housing if the new procedures were not introduced effectively or if there was any possibility that individual cases that caused concern might fall through the net. I do not want to exaggerate the risk, although there has been evidence in the past few days of another registered social landlord being brought under supervision because of concerns about the way its affairs have been managed. This is a germane issue and I hope that the Minister will give considerable attention once the Bill is an Act to ensuring that the implementation procedure is carried forward in a way that enables the authority to meet its considerable responsibilities effectively.

Daniel Rogerson: The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) referred to the number of changes that we are seeing later on in the process, and I should apologise for my appearance at this late stage, too. I was present on Report to hear about community land trusts, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, too.
	I had the honour of serving on the Committee on the Planning Bill, which ran concurrently with the Committee on this Bill, and so I was elsewhere during that stage. However, I have looked at the amendments that we are considering and some of the discussions in another place, and it is clear that the Bill has come on in leaps and bounds and has moved forward. There seems to be a great deal more consensus about the direction of travel.
	I deal first with the amendments relating to community land trusts. The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield referred to Rock, in my constituency, a number of times. It would perhaps have been nice if he had given me notice of his plans to do so; it would also have been nice if he had told me that he was coming to the constituency. It would have been nice to have seen him there and to have welcomed him, but [ Interruption. ] I have always made a point of giving such notice myself, and I understood that that was the practice of the House. None the less, I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman is reaffirming his party's commitment to community land trusts. My party has been committed to them for some timeindeed, local authorities in Cornwall were working with Cornwall Rural Housing Association to move forward on the issue, which is why the hon. Gentleman had the benefit of seeing something on the ground and in practice.
	As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, the scheme in Rock is a self-build scheme. I had the honour of introducing my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) to another scheme, one that was being run with Cornwall Rural Housing Association in Blisland, up on Bodmin moor, in my constituency. That scheme involves a mix of more conventional properties for rent through the housing association and the community land trust board. However, that scheme has had to be pushed forward with the help of North Cornwall district council because, as the hon. Gentleman said, despite the fact that the Government have said they favoured the community land trust model, there did not seem to be the confidence that the funding mechanisms were in place to allow it to go forward through the Housing Corporation. Although North Cornwall district council was in the right place at the right time to ensure that that scheme moved forward, I hope the amendments will mean that any other community land trust that faces the same problems will be able to get around those issues and receive funding in the normal way. We will see a big development in this sector, and both sides of the House seem to be in agreement that that is a positive way forward.
	I pay tribute to the work of Cornwall Rural Housing Association. It is committed to the scheme, and to developing first a Cornwell-wide model and, hopefully, more local models within that. I hope that I have been a vocal advocate of that, in terms of speaking to Members on both sides of the House.

Grant Shapps: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if the message from my office about the visit did not get through. He certainly represents a very beautiful part of the world. Does he agree that the problems that the rural housing association experienced in trying to assist the community land trust at Rock would have been helpedand will be, I hopeby the inclusion of the vital description of CLTs in the Bill?

Daniel Rogerson: There seems to have been an issue in that community land trusts know what they mean by that title, and many people around seem to know, but when finance is involved financial backers want a definition in legislation. That gives backers the confidence, understandably, to put our collective money where our political mouths are.

Andrew Love: Although I agree in principle that a provision in the Bill will assist us, the hon. Gentleman might consider the experience of the co-operative movement over a long period. The definition of a co-operative was written into law, but it was not much good in assisting the movement in obtaining the finance it wanted.

Daniel Rogerson: I bow to the hon. Gentleman's experience. He makes an important clarification of the situation we face with regard to community land trusts.
	In the other place, my noble Friends raised issues about qualifying disclosure, which is a welcome change to the Bill, so that we can be confident that information is passed on only when absolutely necessary. Of course, discs have gone astray in transit in other circumstances, but I am sure it will not happen again in future.
	As the Minister said, there have been clarifications about the disposal of land. The process should not necessarily be subject to the same regulation as social housing and should allow registered social landlords to behave in a way that better furthers their agenda to deliver affordable housing. I welcome the fact that under amendment No. 203, Parliament will have a further chance to look through the affirmative procedure at the enabling powers to which the Minister referred.
	Having had the chance to look at the Bill only at a late stage, I am in a happy position, because we seem to be moving towards a measure that everybody is a little happier about. The Minister said that we want a regulator who acts in the interests of tenants and not necessarily in the interests of the policy objectives of the Government of the day. If the amendments take us closer to an organisationwhat will now be called a TSAthat very much acts in the interests of tenants, the Liberal Democrats will be much happier when that lies at the heart of the Bill.

David Drew: I shall speak narrowly to amendments Nos. 66 and 67, which I am delighted will be incorporated into the Bill. I record my thanks to Lord Graham, who tabled them in the other place and who, in his wily and indefatigable way, persuaded all and sundry of the wisdom of including them. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister and the Ministers in the other place, Baroness Andrews and Lord Bassam

Linda Gilroy: rose

David Drew: I was about to thank my hon. Friend, but as she wants to intervene she can do her own song and dance act.

Linda Gilroy: My hon. Friend, too, should accept some of the thanks for moving the matter forward. My thanks also go to the Minister.
	Does my hon. Friend agree that the provisions will help to make a difference not only in rural constituencies such as his and those of Opposition Members but in constituencies such as mine? The report that I recently placed before the Minister included a recommendation that we should recognise community land trusts.

David Drew: Of course I agree. It is important that we move on after quite a tortuous process, but it is better to get the legislation right rather than doing things hurriedly and ending up with the wrong legislation. The Opposition laudably tabled the proposals in the first place, but the only problem was that they were in the wrong part of the Bill so they would not have done quite what we wanted. I am glad that the process has worked as it should and has teased out the facts, looked at the information in totality and applied it in the most sensible way possible so that we have a piece of legislation that is fit for purpose.
	I thank David Rodgers, the chief executive of CDS Co-operatives, who has done much work behind the scenes. He is not completely satisfied, as the Minister knows. We shall live to fight another day, because we want to look at some of the ways land trusts can apply to other aspects of community ownership as well as housing. The wonderful community empowerment Bill is coming up, and we hope to look at the issue then and make use of the wonderful opportunities that are being offered. I will not use the words social engineering, which are dangerous in this day and age, but we can consider how communities can engineer opportunities to solve their problems. I make no bones about the fact that the issue is important in rural areas and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) says, it is important in urban areas, too. The main thing, however, is that we see it as important in its own right and not as something that will sit on the shelf gathering dust. The provisions will actually make a difference. A form of ownership was beginning that had no statutory basis whatever. That could not be right; it could have led to all sorts of legal challenges in the future. Quite apart from the issue of finance, there is the simple fact that community governance could have been undermined if there was a legal challenge. It is absolutely right that the provisions are in place.
	I have two caveats, which we might consider in subsequent measures. My hon. Friend the Minister will no doubt have an overview of any legislation that may be introduced in the next Session. We need to consider both how we define communities and how they generate enthusiasm for ideas bottom-up. We need to be careful, because the current definition is a bit narrow and self-seeking. We need to ensure that it gives as much opportunity as possible.
	In addition, my friend David Rodgers would have words with me if I did not point out that we need to make it clear that in terms of forms of mutual home ownership, there is a particular co-operative way in which community land trusts can operate. If I did not make that point, it would also disappoint my three Co-operative friends on the Labour Benches [ Interruption. ] My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) has just glanced at me. I apologise for not including him. The mutual home ownership model is not the only form of community land trust and not necessarily the most preferred model at present, but in essence it is a genuinely co-operative form of ownership that some of usespecially at the Cashes Green scheme that the Minister will be visiting shortlyare keen should be pioneered. We think it has particular advantages where a community has really begun to address its problems and to propose solutions in which it has complete faith because it has ownership of them.
	I thank the Minister. This is a wonderful day because it is nice to see a bit of legislation on which I may have made an imprint, although I would in no way claim responsibility for it.

Iain Wright: With the leave of the House, I shall comment briefly on some of the issues that have been raised. I thank Members on both sides of the House for their comments and the generally warm sentiments that have been expressed about the amendments. I should like to make a number of points on cross-domain regulation and community land trusts, particularly with regard to the comments made by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps).
	I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want inadvertently to mislead the House; I do not want him to rewrite history and make it seem as though I had been fundamentally opposed to cross-domain regulation and community land trusts but suddenly underwent a conversion halfway through the passage of the Bill. I have always said that cross-domain regulation was an objective that we should pursue. I said time and again in Committee that the issue was complex and would require detailed consideration, helped by the work of Professor Ian Cole. Frankly, I also thought that the other place would not like a broad enabling clausea so-called Henry VIII clauseto allow the provision to come into being, but I was wrong. The will of Parliament was clearly expressed, and that is why the measure was included in the Bill.
	I have always been a great fan of community land trusts. One of the 14 pilot areas is in my constituency. I think that CLTs are an incredibly important way of ensuring that land, buildings and assets generally are available for the local community in perpetuity. Again, it was always the intention that we would provide some legal definition of community land trusts.

Linda Gilroy: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Iain Wright: May I finish my point? As I have discussed with my hon. Friend, whom I commend for her fantastic report on housing, which she recently gave me, I thought that the scope of the Bill that will be introduced in the fourth Sessionthe draft Community Empowerment, Housing and Economic Regeneration Billticked all the boxes, with regard to community land trusts. I think that CLTs will be a key part of that Bill, and I thought that a legal definition could be provided in it. However, again, Parliament expressed its will, and the Government listened, and ensured that the definition was provided.

Linda Gilroy: I can confirm what the Minister says; he has had a long-standing interest in ensuring that community land trusts can prosper, as has my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and her predecessor, now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Some of us have discussed the issue not only with the Minister but with his colleagues, and we thank him for that.

Iain Wright: I thank my hon. Friend for those kind comments. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), I pay tribute to David Rodgers of CDS Co-operatives and my noble Friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, a fellow north-easterner who always describes himself as Lord Ted of Ed. I am not sure whether it is parliamentary to describe my noble Friend as wily, but I think I know what hon. Friend meant. In general, the provisions on cross-domain regulation, community land trusts and tenant empowerment seem to have been warmly welcomed by the House, for which I am grateful.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) made some incredibly pertinent points, as always, with regard to the nature and function of the regulator. Again, I am grateful to him for his kind comments on my involvement in the Bill. He made a good point about ensuring that business models are robust, particularly in the current climate; availability of finance is not what it was even six months ago. He is absolutely right to say that the regulator has a role to play. He also mentioned how important it is to make sure that the implementation procedure is closely considered in the period until the regulator comes into being, and I certainly pledge to do that. As regards regulation, he will know that previously there was only a very low level of intervention and a nuclear option. He knows that we are providing a new range of enforcement powers that essentially make the regulator more flexible and proportionate in what it does to raise standards for tenants. I welcome what has been said in the House tonight, and I hope that the whole House can approve the amendments.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 66 to 168 agreed to.

Clause 293
	  
	Ballots before certain disposals to private landlords

Lords amendment: No. 169.

Iain Wright: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 170 to 200, 220 and 221, 223, 246 to 262, 273 to 275, 277, 279, 280, 288, 290, 307 and 310.

Iain Wright: Lords Amendments Nos. 169 to 171 address the concerns that Members of both Houses raised about the adequacy of tenant ballots on stock transfer. The issue was raised on Report by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who mentioned the potential lack of objectivity in the information provided to tenants when stock transfer was proposed, both in his constituency and in other areas. The issue was also mentioned in the other place by my noble Friend Lord Whitty, who reiterated points about imbalance and the timeliness of information. I resolved to have a closer look at the issue on Report; that was the origin of Lords amendments Nos. 169 to 171. They would require the Secretary of Stateor Welsh Ministers in relation to Walesto publish guidance on the consultation process with tenants and the holding of ballots prior to the possible transfer of council housing stock to registered providers. The amendments also require local authorities to have regard to that guidance.
	I am keen to put those requirements into the Bill to reflect the Government's commitment to ensuring that tenants are properly informed about and involved in issues to do with the future ownership of their homes. The amendments will provide a safeguard in circumstances where there is considerable cynicism and scepticism about the willingness to involve tenants effectively or to have due regard to the view of the majority. I hope that the amendments will be welcomed by the whole House.
	I turn to the amendments relating to family intervention tenancies. The House will recall that such tenancies are a useful tool to allow families showing antisocial behaviour to be offered behaviour support services to tackle directly the root causes of such inappropriate and thoughtless behaviour. In our Committee considerations, the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) moved amendments to tighten up the general reference to the phrase behaviour support services and where they might be applied. The other place expressed similar concern with the definition of behaviour support services, particularly about whether it might be too vague. It also thought that there was a risk of families giving up secure or assured tenancies to receive light-touch or irrelevant support services that would not give the family the skills to sustain a tenancy. The other place also echoed the anxiety expressed by Shelter over whether further clarification of the circumstances in which family intervention tenancies could be used was needed.
	I am keen to ensure that such family intervention tenancies and related behaviour support services are relevant and effective. I agree with the other place that additional safeguards should be put in place when they are sensible and do not unduly compromise the flexibility of projects to carry out their activities. Lords amendments Nos. 177 to 180 and 185 to 189 therefore ensure that the behaviour support services provided under the family intervention tenancythe FITbe such services as are identified in the behaviour support agreement between the tenant, landlord and local housing authority. Behaviour support agreements set out clearly what support will be offered and by whom, and what in return is expected from those families. Before a FIT is entered into, the tenant must be served with a notice that includes those matters set out in the Billfor example, the reasons for offering the tenancy, the security of tenure of the new tenancy and a statement that the tenant is not obliged to accept the offer.
	Clause 296 provides for a regulation-making power that would enable the Secretary of State to change, add to or remove the contents of the FIT notice. In the light of recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the importance of the contents of the FIT notice, the Government tabled Lords amendments Nos. 174, 175, 184 and 185, so that any amendment or repeal of the required contents of the notice would be by affirmative order.
	I now turn to the issue of tolerated trespassers, which the House will recall occupied the House during all stages of the Bill's passage. On Report we amended the Bill to ensure that tolerated trespassers would not be created in future so that people would remain tenants until they left the property or were evicted. Part 2 of schedule 10 will restore tenancy status to existing tolerated trespassers by granting a new tenancy from the date that the provisions come into force on the same terms and conditions as the original tenancy. These provisions have been widely welcomed outside the House.
	In response to concerns raised in the other place, Lords amendment No. 250 was tabled to address the position of tolerated trespassers who have transferred to a new landlord. The amendment includes a power to provide by order that a new tenancy will arise wherever there has been a change in landlord since the former tenant became a tolerated trespasser. It also provides for the order to set out the details of how this would work. I would like to put the House on notice that it is the Government's intention that those should be kept as close as possible to the existing provisions for new tenancies, as in schedule 11.
	This group also contains amendments to remedy the declaration of incompatibility in respect of section 185(4) of the Housing Act 1996. I am pleased to see in his place my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), who tabled amendments relating to this issue in Committee. I gave a commitment in Committee that the Government would bring forward a remedy as soon as possible, and I would like to take this opportunity to say that we regret the length of time that it has taken to develop a remedy in this particular case. The amendments make changes to the homelessness legislation across the UK. This is a complex area of law, but in summary, the issue at stake is what help British citizens whose household includes members with different immigration status should get if they become homeless. The amendments will ensure that in future, households in those circumstances will be provided with suitable housing, while continuing to ensure that people from abroad with no claim to UK public resources cannot confer entitlement to long-term social housing.
	The amendments amend the 1996 Act, the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and other provisions so that the current requirement that local housing authorities in England, Wales and Scotland, and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, must disregard ineligible household members when considering whether an eligible housing applicant is homeless or has a priority need for accommodation will no longer apply to applicants who are British citizens, European economic area nationals or Commonwealth citizens with the right of abode in the UK. However, where an applicant who is a British citizen, an EEA national or a Commonwealth citizen with a right of abode in the UK is owed a main homelessness duty only because homelessness or priority need is conveyed to him by an ineligible member of his household who requires leave to stay and does not have it, or has leave but with a condition of no recourse to public fundsreferred to in the amendments as a restricted personthe local authority will be required, so far as is practical, to discharge the homelessness duty by arranging an offer of other accommodation in the private rented sector.

Andrew Love: I welcome the fact that the Government have responded to this issue, which has been outstanding for some time, but let me press my hon. Friend on two matters relating to the amendments. First, the basis of the decision by the Court of Appeal on this matter was that immigration control had no legitimate bearing on a British citizen, and the question therefore continues to arise as to whether the amendments respond to that decision. Secondly, there is still a form of discrimination relating to people in those circumstances, because they will have recourse only to the private sector and not to the social sector. How does the Minister respond to those concerns?

Iain Wright: I understand what my hon. Friend says, and he makes some good points. However, as I am sure he agrees, the amendments are trying to strike the right balance between remedying the incompatibility, maintaining a firm immigration policy and protecting the UK taxpayer. While I accept that British citizens and others with an absolute right to be here must be provided with some form of housing assistance if they become homeless through no fault of their own and are relying on a restricted person to convey homelessness or priority need, I do not consider that that assistance should convey priority or entitlement for long-term social housing. The important point that I would make to my hon. Friend is that these people will not be left homeless, as they could be under the current, incompatible, provisions. I hope that he accepts that.

Nick Raynsford: Let me pose to my hon. Friend a problem that may arise as a result of the new arrangement, which I welcome as an improvement on the existing position, which was clearly incompatible. The restriction in such cases to private rented accommodation, where rent levels are generally significantly higher than in the social sector, may well create a problem whereby the lack of entitlement to public funds on the part of a member of the household means that it is not possible for the household to meet the cost of that private rented accommodation. I understand from his letter that the new arrangement will require the local authority
	to be satisfied that the accommodation is suitable and that it is reasonable for the applicant to accept the offer.
	Is he confident that there will not be problems whereby the authority cannot be satisfied that the accommodation is suitable, because it cannot be afforded, so it is not reasonable for the applicant to accept the offer? I fear that in responding to one problem we may be creating the genesis of another one. I would be grateful for his thoughts on that, either tonight, or at a future stage if he would like to take further soundings on it.

Iain Wright: I thank my right hon. Friend for those comments; he makes an important point. If he will allow me, I would like to reflect on what he said about the question of suitability. His point about cost is appropriate, and I will reflect on it. I take on board his point that by trying to resolve the incompatibility on one issue, we could be creating something else. I would like to consider that further.

Andrew Love: I thank my hon. Friend for his generosity. I want to follow up the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford). My point relates to the view of the Government on people who are here illegally, and those who do not have recourse to public funds. Although I understand that a balance can be struck for those who are here illegally, it seems somewhat perverse to include those who do not have recourse to public funds, especially since, in most instances, they will be children under 16. Following the comments made by others, will my hon. Friend give some more consideration to the matter, and perhaps, shall we say, review it?

Iain Wright: Again, I appreciate what my hon. Friend is saying, and I respect his views on the matter. I reiterate the point that I made earlier: we need to strike the right balance between remedying the incompatibility, providing a fair immigration policy and protecting the UK taxpayer. The important point is that, as a result of the amendments and the attempt to remedy the incompatibility, the people in question will not be left homeless, as they would have been under the current, incompatible, provisions. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured by that.

Grant Shapps: Following the interventions that the Under-Secretary has just taken, I wonder whether, in his current reflective state, he might think about what happens to someone from one of the A10 accession countries to the European Union who was here legally and does not have recourse to public funds. I am reminded of a visit to the Upper Room at St. Saviour's in Hammersmith last week. Its primary concern is a large group of people from the A10 countries who would have no recourse to public funds, and would presumably fall within the consideration that the Under-Secretary is now giving to the subject.

Iain Wright: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point in connection with the A10 countries, and I will look into it.
	To conclude, the amendments remedy the current incompatibility, and to repeat the point I made earlier, they will strike a fair balance between the rights of migrants who come to this country with no claim to public funds and the interests of UK taxpayers.

Bob Spink: Lords amendments Nos. 169 to 171 allow local authorities to hold a ballot as soon as a notice is served, but also call on them to have regard to guidance given by the appropriate person. Where a local authority has already had a ballot, and tenants have voted against a transfer, would the guidance from the appropriate person allow local authorities to hold ballot after ballot after ballot until they get the answer that they want, or would those authorities' ability to re-ballot be restricted?

Iain Wright: I do not expect that the guidance will prevent a local authority that has had a ballot on stock transfer from having another one at some point. I think that it will say that a reasonable amount of time would have to elapse between a ballot and any subsequent ballot, to allow people to reflect and to consider. It would not be right for us to say that because one ballot had taken place, a local authority area could not have another one.
	Let me conclude by briefly mentioning Lords amendments on the right to buy. They include several minor and technical amendments to the right-to-buy clauses, and are necessary to ensure that the provisions work effectively. They are important amendments, especially in terms of remedying the incompatibility that I mentioned earlier. I hope that my comments reassure hon. Members, and I commend the amendments to them.

Stewart Jackson: I congratulate the Under-Secretary on his epic, marathon handling of the Bill in the past few months. Unfortunately, I was unable to be with him in CommitteeI obviously missed somethingbut he has handled the measure well. We have faced each other on many occasions in Westminster Hall in the past few months.
	Earlier, family disputes were mentioned. Something of a family dispute occurred in the Labour party on Report. As the Under-Secretary knows, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and several other hon. Members, including Liberal Democrat Members, such as the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), took issue over the governance of tenancy ballots. I personally believe that the Under-Secretary was right to point out in the letter that he sent to hon. Members last week that changes were unnecessary because there was no evidence, on Report or subsequently, that there is anything wrong with the current guidance on overseeing and governing tenancy ballots. The dispute, and the need to table an amendment on the subject, owes more to internal Labour party politics about housing policy than anything else. I recollect that on Report the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) was on the receiving end of some robust interventions from other Labour Members on this matter, and on the housing revenue account, on that evening in March.

Lembit �pik: As the hon. Gentleman says, the issue for my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) and others is housing policy. Whatever structures we discuss, if policy is manipulated in a specific way, the Government can ensure a specific outcomeon this occasion, the dogmatic assumption that stock transfer is preferable to local authorities holding on to stock. That vexes my colleagues, and perhaps some Labour Members.

Stewart Jackson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. However, other hon. Members and I previously made the point that none of us had a vested interest in anything but clear, transparent and democratic debate and discussion before large groups of tenants make decisions. I speak largely from my experience, and I know that my predecessor as Member of Parliament for Peterborough supported the tenants' decisions. A proper debate, discussion and ballot took place, and I believe that the right decision was made to transfer the stock. We therefore have no objection to the Government's change of heart, other than to be slightly cynical about the reasons for it, especially as in the letter of 17 July the Under-Secretary dismisses the need for it, but states that he was required to take a closer look. There is, therefore, some confusion, and he may wish to comment on that. However, it is important to regularise the procedures for stock transfer ballots. That is the right way to give the process some support and integrity.
	It is important to support the amendment that deals with family intervention tenancies, because it is about supporting local autonomy, among tenants, landlords and local housing authorities, in respect of support contracts. We certainly believe that on some occasions it is appropriate to go down that avenue, in order to reduce the scourge of antisocial behaviour and the massive impact that a small group of families can have on the quality of life in a local estate. Anything practical and appropriate to prevent that is to be supported.
	Again, however, having 717 amendments to the Bill since Second Reading does not make for particularly good scrutiny, as my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) have pointed out. We could have had more time to debate the issue on Report, but we went off on something of a tangent, discussing the minutiae of the housing revenue account and its funding. It bears repetition that that is not a satisfactory situation.
	On the third issue that the Minister mentioned, about eligibility for housing assistance, the point has been well made by both the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich and the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) that the decision the Government have come to with the relevant amendmenttheir prognosticationhas taken a significant amount of time.
	We should remember that professionals in housing authorities at the local level regularly have to deal with such issues. In London boroughs in particular, as well as in areas such as mine in the east of England, including Boston, Breckland, King's Lynn and Peterborough, the problem is an everyday issue, and a resource-intensive one, too. Housing officers are being asked to make value judgments that have a significant effect on families who are vulnerable for various reasons. I have dealt with a significant number of families who are, frankly, at the end of their tether, not just because of housing but because of other areas of public provision, and who are looked after under the auspices of the Red Cross.
	My plea to the Minister is to think carefully about how he proceeds, particularly given the pertinent point made by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich that we might still be in some difficulty, notwithstanding the final paragraph of the Minister's letter, over the suitability and reasonableness of the accommodation offered in the private sector and the ability of the family or families to accept the offer. The proposal is a sticking plaster; it is not a panacea. We congratulate the Minister on trying to regularise the situation and clarify the discrepancy between the two pieces of legislation and the European convention on human rights, but that is not the end of the road, nor is it a definitive resolution of the issue.
	On tolerated trespassers, I commend the Minister for having listened to key stakeholders in the housing sector, including Shelter. We certainly support the Government on that subject. In general, despite one caveata slightly partisan caveat, I admitabout tenancy ballots, we support the amendments in the group.

Lembit �pik: May I, too, say that we feel some frustration that we cannot really consider the amendments in the group in detail, given the timetable? However, it would be churlish of us not to say that, with this group, the Government have, albeit under duress, taken on board the recommendations made in another place, which were also the subject of extensive conversation in Committee. The Minister has again demonstrated his genuine commitment to trying to make improvements, even when that means humbly taking on board recommendations that originated in opposition parties and organisations outside Parliament.
	On this specific group of amendments, we support the improvement in tenants' rights during stock transfer. On the question of ballots, I have said before that anything can be achieved if one uses the financial incentives and disincentives that are abundantly obvious to anyone who looks at the Government's approach to stock transfer. To be blunt, it is obvious that this Governmentfor some dogmatic reasonthink that transferring stock out of local authority control is something actively to be promoted. It hardly comes as a surprise, therefore, that colleagues in my partyand in the Minister's partyare unhappy about the fact that there is such a financial disincentive not to transfer stock. Having said that, there have been improvements in the process. While the structural improvements are welcome, we will have to return on another occasion to the policy obstacles that local authorities regularly meet when facing the unenviable dilemma between unwillingly encouraging the transfer of stock or accepting the economic hit of keeping it under local government control.
	Family intervention tenancies are overdue, and will become even more important in the difficult economic times ahead. Tightening up the definition of behavioural support services is useful, but those services must be properly resourced, and simply putting them into a Bill will not be enough to ensure that the money is available to make them work.
	Tolerated trespass was a subject that occupied a lot of our time in Committee, and it is good to see some improvements in regard to the restoration of certain rights. This should now work better, but we might have to return to the issue if, in practice, the application of the tolerated trespass legislation is not achieving its goals. People are very inventive, and if they find ways to achieve their goals that go against the spirit of the legislation, this might be a useful subject for a statutory instrument. Let us hope for the best, however.
	We have inevitably discussed the impact of migration on housing. I still hold the view that immigration provides a net financial benefit to this country. We have almost full employment, and many jobs would not be done if those migrants were not here. There are of course consequences for housing. Notwithstanding this legislation, we still have something of a schizophrenic approach towards the economic benefits of allowing migration into this country, which I support, and the pressures on housing and other social services that unquestionably cause varying levels of strain in local communities. It is beyond our remit to discuss that matter today, but I hope that the Government are cognisant of the fact that the HCA on its own will not be able to resolve some of these issues, as they have profound social consequences that even an effective HCA with an excellent chief executive cannot resolve.
	Lords amendments Nos. 169 to 171 relate to transfer proposals, in which I am particularly interested. We have already discussed them, and the eminently sensible improvements that have been made reflect the actions of a listening Minister, following an extensive dialogue in this House and another place.
	Finally, I want to make a policy observation. The right-to-buy proposals that form a substantial part of this legislationas well as existing legislationdo nothing to help to maintain a social housing stock. They obviously help individuals to move up the housing ladder, but that on its own is not enough to ensure that the 1.67 million people

Grant Shapps: It is 1.7 million.

Lembit �pik: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The 1.7 million people in need of housing

Grant Shapps: Families.

Lembit �pik: The right to buy will not help the 1.7 million families in this country who are in need of social housing to get housed. Indeed, it seems to have had the opposite effect, not least due to the policy consequences of the money accrued by local authorities that have participated in many right-to-buy schemes. I do not expect the Minister to reply to this point tonight, as it is beyond the scope of these amendments. I want to put on record, however, that the right to buy, however attractive it might seem, leaves a hole that can be filled only by innovative partnership projects involving local authorities, or by a significant investment of money that is far in excess of anything that the Government have so far offered to achieve that goal.

Iain Wright: I will comment on some of the points raised by hon. Members. In general, I detect warm acceptance of the amendments. We listened to the concerns expressed in Committee and in the other place; we reflected on them; and we tabled the amendments in response.
	I will rise to the bait on the point made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) about stock transfer and ballots. He knows that we have strengthened current arrangements and made ballots on transfer of stock mandatory; that part of the Bill has been warmly welcomed. He will remember, as will the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) who is just leaving the Chamber, that my letter of 17 July dealt with evidence [Interruption.] I apologise to the House; it was not the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield, but the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson). I reiterate what I said on Reportthat the vast majority of cases of stock transfer are done fairly, clearly and transparently. In my former life as an auditor when I reviewed large-scale voluntary transfers, I noted that in a small minority of cases there was a question about the objectivity of the information provided to tenants. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) pointed this out in Committee and I made the same point: I want the process to remain as clear, transparent and accountable as possible, with the information being objective in 100 per cent. of stock transfer ballots.

Lembit �pik: Without engaging in a detailed policy debate on the issue, does the Minister accept that whatever the probity of the stock transfer ballot process, there continues to be an as yet unresolved debate between those who believe that the Government have made the finances biased in favour of encouraging stock transfer and those who believe, like him, either that that is a good thing or who deny such bias?

Iain Wright: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's point. I have to say that on Report and elsewhere, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) made some excellent points about registered social landlords. I have pointed out on several occasionsfrom the Dispatch Box and elsewherethat local authorities have a role to play in their area's housing. They provide a strategic assessment of what housing is required in the locality. Where it is appropriate and provides value for money for the taxpayer, local authorities have a direct role in delivery. The Bill will help that to happen and will remove some of the disincentives acting on local authorities to provide housing. However, the hon. Gentleman will know what my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich can articulate far more eloquently than I can: registered social landlords can lever in private money that can make a real difference in providing decent homes and much-needed investment for social housing. That investment raises the standard of housing for tenants who are often the most vulnerable, which should be welcomed throughout the House. Since 1997, we have seen considerableindeed, unprecedentedlevels of investment in social housing, largely as a result of the ability of registered social landlords to lever in such investment. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.

Lembit �pik: rose

Iain Wright: I will give way in order to allow him to welcome it.

Lembit �pik: I welcome the private investment for social housing achieved through the vehicle the Minister describes. However, I firmly believe that the primary reason why the Government are so obsessed with encouraging a shift in social housing from the public to the private sector is the fear that it otherwise shows up in the public sector borrowing requirement. That provides a technical reason to explain why local authorities are being pretty much forced into shifting social housing out into the private sectorhowever little they may actually want to do that in practice. Does the Minister accept that?

Iain Wright: No, I disagree. All local authorities can choose models that are appropriate to their circumstances, whether it be stock transfer, retention of council housing stock or an arm's length management organisation. We have provided the flexibility to allow authorities to decide locally what is needed in the area. I have ministerial responsibility for ALMOs, which are a fantastic model. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the tremendous work of ALMOs in Newcastle upon Tyne, for example. Various models are in place for various circumstances, and that is appropriate.
	On remedying the incompatibility of homelessness legislation, I understand the comments of some Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love). Time and again, however, I return to the balancethere is onebetween remedying that incompatibility, providing fairness but firmness in immigration policy, and ensuring value for money for the UK taxpayer. We have been discussing social housingparticularly council housingwhich is a valuable asset for the country. We need a lot more of it, and we need to ensure that the remedy provides the appropriate balance between the competing and often conflicting concerns.

Stewart Jackson: Will the Minister liaise with his colleagues who are responsible for community cohesion, for instance, to ascertain the magnitude of the problem? One of the difficulties for the House and others in coming to a settled view on changing policy is that we simply do not know how much the problem is occurring, which parts of the country are affected, and the significance of its impact on resources.

Iain Wright: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I have had questions and discussions with officials on the matter, and all the indicators show that the number of people affected by the current incompatibility is extremely small. I cannot quantify that, and I understand his concerns, but I shall liaise, as he suggests, with the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), who has responsibility for community cohesion, to ensure a coherent strategy. I detect warm acceptance of the amendments, and I hope that the House will approve them.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 170 to 205 agreed  to [one with Special Entry].

Clause 318
	  
	Orders and regulations

Lords amendment: No. 206

Iain Wright: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 210, 213 to 219 and 222.

Iain Wright: We come to the final group, which is made up of technical and minor amendments. I want to draw the House's attention to several of them, not least because the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) always smiles when I mention the phrase minor and technical.
	Lords amendments Nos. 206, 210, 213 and 214 give effect to a recommendation made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report on the Housing and Regeneration Bill. The recommendation relates to the power provided by clause 319 to make consequential amendments. Our original intention was that all orders made using the power should be subject to the affirmative procedure. However, the Committee's view was that that procedure was necessary only when an Act was being amended. We agreed with the Committee's conclusion and the amendments will implement it.
	Lords amendments Nos. 216 and 219 make it clear that orders made under part 4 of the Bill can extend to the whole of the United Kingdom. By amending the Bill in that way, the necessary consequential or transitional provisions can be drafted to achieve their intended effect.
	Lords amendments Nos. 217 and 218 relate to the territorial extent of the Bill. Generally, as the House will be aware, the Bill extends to England and Wales. However, some of the consequential amendments made under the Bill will amend legislation that also extends to Scotland. The amendments will ensure that these consequential amendments apply only in England and Wales. I hope that the House will be content with the amendments. Although they are minor, they are crucial to ensuring that the Bill works in practice.
	All that is left for me to do now is wish my daughter Hattie a very happy sixth birthday. [Hon. Members: Hear, hear.] I am grateful to the House for that reaction.

Lembit �pik: Following the precedent set by the Minister, I should point out that he has now presented the House with more than 1,000 amendments in a breathtakingly short time. While I am dissatisfied with the lack of time allowed for us to debate them properly, I commend him on taking on board more recommendations from Members in all parts of the House than may have been the case in the past. As a result, he has not only exalted himself in the eyes of those of us who are ruthlessly committed to the best legislation, but caused us violently to agree with his points of view from time to time. It has been one of those occasions.
	In conclusion, let me wish my godfather Kalju Niit a happy birthday as welland thank you for your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments 207 to 311 agreed to [Some with Special Entry].

european documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Committees),

Emissions from Heavy Duty Vehicles

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 5127/08 and Addenda 1 and 2, draft Regulation on type-approval of motor vehicles and engines with respect to emissions from heavy duty vehicles (Euro VI) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information; endorses the Government's support for a package of measures to reduce vehicle emissions substantially, leading to improvements to health and the environment, whilst allowing appropriate flexibility for industry in the short-term; and notes that the Government will continue to seek the right balance between environmental and other benefits, and burdens on industry. [Tony Cunningham.]
	 Question agreed to.

Petitions
	  
	Post Office Closures (Bedfordshire)

Andrew Selous: I have the pleasure of presenting five petitions on behalf of my constituents, all of which relate to post offices in my constituency that are scheduled for closure. I pay particular tribute to those of my constituents who have gone about collecting large numbers of signatures in a very short period, thus enabling me to present the petitions before the summer recess.
	The first petition concerns Linslade post office, and reads as follows:
	The Petition of customers of Linslade Post Office,
	Declares that they strongly protest against the closure of their local Post Office.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to keep Linslade Post Office open for the benefit of the local community, and especially the elderly and disabled, and all those who would find it particularly difficult to travel to other Post Offices.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000241]

Andrew Selous: The second petition relates to Hockliffe street post office in Leighton Buzzard, and reads as follows:
	The Petition of customers of Hockliffe Street, Leighton Buzzard Post Office,
	Declares that they strongly protest against the closure of their local Post Office.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to keep Hockliffe Street, Leighton Buzzard Post Office open for the benefit of the local community, and especially the elderly and disabled, and all those who would find it particularly difficult to travel to other Post Offices.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000238]

Andrew Selous: The third petition is from the residents of the village of Eaton Bray in my constituency, some 40 of whom I met on Friday morning to discuss the issue. The petition reads as follows:
	The Petition of customers of Eaton Bray Post Office,
	Declares that they strongly protest against the closure of their local Post Office.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to keep Eaton Bray Post Office open for the benefit of the local community, and especially the elderly and disabled, and all those who would find it particularly difficult to travel to other Post Offices.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000242]

Andrew Selous: This petition is on behalf of the customers of the post office in High street south in Dunstable, otherwise known as Hayhoe's in honour of its postmistress.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of customers of High Street South, Dunstable Post Office,
	Declares that they strongly protest against the closure of their local Post Office.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to keep High Street South, Dunstable Post Office open for the benefit of the local community, and especially the elderly and disabled, and all those who would find it particularly difficult to travel to other Post Offices.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000239]

Andrew Selous: The next petition is on behalf of the customers of the Luton road, Dunstable post office.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of customers of Luton Road, Dunstable Post Office,
	Declares that they strongly protest against the closure of their local Post Office.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to keep Luton Road, Dunstable Post Office open for the benefit of the local community, and especially the elderly and disabled, and all those who would find it particularly difficult to travel to other Post Offices.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000240]

Post Office Closures (Halifax)

Linda Riordan: I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of the thousands of my constituents who are against the closure of the Holmfield post office in Halifax.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of those opposed to the decision to close Holmfield Post Office,
	Declares that they do not believe that the Post Office has given consideration to the range of customers using this branch and the impact of its closure on the community; a large proportion of customers will find it difficult to travel to the suggested alternatives. Further declares that the Holmfield community is also growing rapidly with a high number of new businesses moving into the areas and current businesses expanding. This they are sure will guarantee the viability of this branch for many years to come.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory reform to instruct Post Office Ltd to keep Holmfield Post Office open
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000246]

Parking (Halifax)

Linda Riordan: I present a petition on behalf of hundreds of my constituents, headed by Philip Crossley and Kevin Benson, regarding adequate parking in the town centre.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of supporters of increased parking facilities for shoppers in Halifax town centre,
	Declares that more parking facilities are needed for shoppers in Halifax town centre.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to call on Calderdale Council to ensure that provision is made for extra parking in Halifax town centre for shoppers and to guarantee that, should the car park on Broad street be developed on, a parking and shuttle bus service be provided for the Eureka site
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000247]

Post Office Closures (Staffordshire)

Paul Farrelly: I wish to present a petition from 1,400 residents of May Bank in my constituency about the closure of their post office. The petition has been collected by a Conservative councillor, Stephen Holland; there is cross-party co-operation on this matter. We are insisting that the Post Office and Postwatch look again at the decision to close the post office.
	The petition reads:
	The Humble Petition of customers of May Bank High Street Post Office,
	Sheweth
	That the Petitioners believe that the branch provides a vital service to the local community.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to instruct Post Office Ltd to ensure that the May Bank High Street Post Office is retained.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, c.
	[P000256]

Post Office Closures (Essex)

David Amess: Like other hon. Members, I am presenting a petition against the closure of a post office. I have the honour of presenting one that has been signed by more than 1,000 residents of Southend, West. It has been organised by the Chalkwell residents association and the Westborough residents association. Given that the constituency has the greatest concentration of senior citizens in the country, if this post office were to close, it would be devastating for the local community.
	The petition states:
	To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled.
	The Humble Petition of the customers of 553 London Road Post Office, Westcliff-on-Sea, SS0 9LJ and others, Sheweth that said Post Office is widely used by the residents of Southend West and is a vital resource for our community of inestimable value to its elderly and most vulnerable constituents.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do request that the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform instruct the Chief Executive of the Royal Mail Group to keep 553 London Road Post Office open.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, c.
	[P000255]

HMRC Workforce Change (Cornwall)

Andrew George: I rise to present two petitions, the first of which concerns a matter that shocked the local community in west Cornwall. The community opposes the proposed closure of Penlowarth, the Penzance tax office, as it thinks the closure would be barmy, would lose more money than it would gain, would result in the loss of some of the most experienced, capable employees and would contradict the Government's claims that they are supporting the economic regeneration of the UK's poorest region.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of those concerned about the closure of local HMRC offices in Cornwall.
	Declares that they are concerned about cuts to public services, particularly the proposed closure of the HMRC offices.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges HM Treasury to reconsider the decision to close local HMRC office in Cornwall, which provides an excellent service to local people.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000251]

Ankylosing Spondylitis

Andrew George: I present my second petition on behalf of those who suffer from a relatively rare condition known as ankylosing spondylitis, which is an inflammatory arthritis that causes severe pain in joints, iritis, severe fatigue, inflammation of the digestive system, psoriasis of the skin and other debilitating conditions. A new remedy, called anti-tumour necrosis factoranti-TNFhas recently become available, but the petitioners are concerned that it is not fully available across the country. I should declare an interest, in that I suffer from this condition.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of those concerned about the provision of anti-TNF medicines for patients with ankylosing spondylitis.
	Declares that some Primary Care Trusts are not providing anti-TNF medicines for patients with ankylosing spondylitis.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Health to investigate why some Primary Care Trusts are not providing anti-TNF medicines for patients with ankylosing spondylitis.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000252]

Post Office Closures (Manchester)

John Leech: On the final day of the consultation on post office closures in Greater Manchester, I should like to submit a petition signed by more than 1,500 people against the closure of two post offices in my constituency in Ladybarn and East Didsbury. Local people are dismayed by the Labour Government's plans to close 2,500 post offices, particularly those in their local communities, which will damage the viability of local shops and disproportionately impact on the elderly and disabled.
	The petition of those concerned about the proposed closure of post offices in south Manchester:
	Declares that they support the campaigns to save Post Offices in South Manchester, in particular Parrs Wood and Ladybarn Post Offices.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to instruct Post Office Ltd. to ensure that Post Offices in South Manchester, in particular Parrs Wood and Ladybarn Post Offices remain open
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000253]

Sentencing (Dangerous Driving)

Chris Ruane: My constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Coulton, asked me to present a 7,000-signature petition on Friday 11 July. I called upon them at their home at Dyserth, and it was one of the saddest occasions in my 11 years as a Member of Parliament. The Coultons have lost their only child, Amanda Coulton, at the tender age of 20 years.
	The petition states:
	Amanda Coulton was killed by Daniel Storey. He was charged with causing death by dangerous driving with excess alcohol and under the influence of cocaine, driving with no licence and no insurance. The car he was driving did not belong to him. Mr Storey was sentenced to 8 years in prison after pleading guilty. The petitioners believe that he should have received the maximum sentence of 14 years for these crimes.
	This case, and all cases of death by dangerous driving involving illegal levels of alcohol or drugs should automatically be considered for a maximum jail sentence. I hope that the Ministry of Justice and this House will listen to the petitioners.
	 Following is the full text of the petition:
	 [The Petition of those concerned about the length of sentences given to people convicted of dangerous driving.
	 Declares that Amanda Coulton was killed by Daniel Storey. He was charged with causing death by dangerous driving with excess alcohol and under the influence of cocaine, driving with no licence and no insurance. The car he was driving did not belong to him. Mr Storey was sentenced to 8 years in prison after pleading guilty. The petitioners believe that he should have rec ei ved the maximum sentence of 14 years for these crimes.
	 The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Home Secretary to  review the sentence given in the case of Daniel Storey, and to review sentencing policy in respect of dangerous driving.
	 And the Petitioners remain, etc. ]
	[P000254]

BRASS BANDS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Alan Campbell.]

Jeff Ennis: I am delighted to have initiated this debate on support for brass bands and I am conscious of the fact that we have rather longer than usual, so I will be happy to take interventions.
	The stimulus for tonight's debate goes back to 12 November 2007 when the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport replied to a question that I had tabled asking how much funding the Arts Council England had provided to opera, ballet and brass bands over the last five years. The Minister wrote to me stating that in the last five years opera had had 155,914,000, ballet had had some 70,302,000, and brass bands had had 140,000.
	Using my primitive maths, I have estimated that for every 1 brass bands have had in the last five years from the Arts Council, opera has had over 1,100 and ballet has had more than 500. In addition, last year, the Arts Council for England gave brass bands just six grants totalling just over 20,000. That is out of a total budget of approximately a third of 1 billion a year.

David Taylor: Like my hon. Friend I represent a former mining area and brass bands are a major part of our culture. No one would suggest that opera and ballet should not receive fundingI love both of thembut would he say that the numbers of people who enjoy brass bands, or are involved with them, would be a thousandth of those who enjoy opera and ballet? I cannot believe that for a moment.

Jeff Ennis: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point, on which I shall be building throughout my contribution tonight.
	It is important at this point that I give the House some background information on the state of brass bands in the UK and the financial plight that they suffer. Very briefly, there are roughly 600 brass bands across the whole UK with approximately 20,000 players. It costs a brass band approximately 60,000 to provide a full set of instruments. Many community brass bands draw their players, from the ages of eight to 88, from the local community. Most brass bands rehearse at least twice a week and the average fee that a brass band receives for a performance is about 150 to 200. Transport costs can vary between 175 and 750 per performance and many brass bands survive only by charging their players a weekly subscription fee of approximately 5 a week.
	Of course, brass bands incur expenses in performing. For example, instruments have a realistic life expectancy of about 15 to 20 years when played in a reasonable-quality band. In top-class bands, that would probably be reduced to five to 10 years. I have already mentioned the cost of 60,000, and band uniforms, which last about 10 years, cost between 7,500 and 10,000 per set. Sheet music costs an average of between 25 and 80 per piece and insurance costs for each brass band run at approximately 1,200 a year. There are other costs, such as rehearsal and storage facilities, and tuition fees.

Chris Ruane: I know that my hon. Friend is not one to blow his own trumpet, but I think that he should be congratulated on securing the debate. Does he agree that not only northern brass bands in mining communities, so beautifully portrayed in the moving film, Brassed Off, are involved but seaside towns are, too? I commend the Rhyl silver band, from my hometown of Rhyl, and the Rhyl brass band festival. The bias is not just in funding from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport but in airtime on the BBC, which is a publicly funded broadcasting company. There is time for rock and for jazzthere is lots and lots of time for classicalbut minimal time for brass bands. Does he agree?

Jeff Ennis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, I wrote on that theme to the director-general of the BBC, Mark Thompson, in about February or March, to say that in previous generations brass bands got a lot more airplay on the radio and on television and that the point needed to be addressed. I was very disappointed with the response that I received. I do not have time to go into the details of that response, but I am sure that that will be of interest to the Minister.

David Taylor: My hon. Friend might agree that when brass bands approach funding organisations, they far too often receive a response that is at best sniffy, and at worst patronising. Those responses come from the echelon of society that tends to be over-represented in assessing applications for grants which would help this form of music that means so much to so many communities, as the film Brassed Off illustrated so wonderfully all those years ago.

Jeff Ennis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) about seaside towns, the Minister will recall the meeting that we had with representatives from the brass bands. I took with me the musical director for Ascot Brass, Bryan Catcheside. Ascot is one of the most salubrious areas in the country and Ascot Brass is struggling to keep its head above water. The only way it can stay afloat is because it gets the use of the church hall, given free of charge by a local minister, to practise in. That is the level of disadvantage that brass bands face.

Michael Jabez Foster: Does my hon. Friend agree that that applies not only to company brass bands but even to Salvation Army bands, which are so integral to the brass band movement? A point was made earlier about seaside towns, and my seaside town, Hastings, has Sussex Brass, which finds it extremely difficult. Most importantly, when the band plays the deckchairs are full, so there is enormous public support for the brass band movementsupport that, I dare say, would not extend to opera on the beach.

Jeff Ennis: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I was born in Grimethorpe, so my local brass band is the Grimethorpe Colliery bandprobably the best band in the world. The band featured in the film Brassed Off, which was also my by-election theme in 1996Brassed off with the Torieswhen we got rid of the Major majority, but I do not want to make this a political issue.
	This weekend, the Grimethorpe Colliery band has been at the Kent brass festival, playing at Deal one night and at Dunstable on another. Recently, the band applied to the Arts Council for travelling expenses for those concerts, but the application was refused on the basis that it had not been made in time. That just underlines the situationthe very best brass band in the world cannot get funding to travel to Kent to entertain the people of Kent with music that is loved in the Kent coalfields.

Michael Jabez Foster: I appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend does not want to make it a political issue, but is it not the case that not a single Tory, not a single Lib Dem nor a single Member of any other party has bothered to take part in this important debate?

Jeff Ennis: My hon. Friend makes a good point. He is of course aware that recently I set up the all-party brass band group, which has all-party representation. To be fair to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who is not in the Chamber, he was extremely supportive in setting up the all-party group, and indeed is a vice-chair. Some good brass bands from the tin industry are based in Cornwall and Devon.
	Since I tabled my question in November, I have had a number of positive and fruitful meetings. The first was with my right hon. Friend the Minister in February when I took a delegation of brass band representatives to meet her, as I mentioned earlier. The brass band sector was extremely impressed with her response. She was as accommodating and positive as she could be and she made some useful suggestions.
	In March, I held a meeting with the chief exec and finance director of Yorkshire Forward at the Minister's instigation. In May I had meetings with the chair and chief exec of the Arts Council England. Recently, I had a meeting with the new chief exec of the Big Lottery Fund, Peter Wanless. All the people I have met have been supportive and sympathetic to the plight of brass bands. They all made interesting and positive suggestions about how we could improve the lot of brass bands. I am thinking particularly of community brass bandsthe ones at grass-roots level that are the vast majority of our 600 or 700 brass bands. Their players are aged from eight to 88 and they perform at local galas and concert halls, local church events and so on. They are intrinsic to the culture of their area.
	Many of the suggestions were signposted to the British Federation of Brass Bands, which coincidentally is based in Barnsley. The BFBB is a worthy organisation that is doing its best to represent bands, and I am pleased to say that it is responding positively to the suggestions that have been made. A letter I sent recently to the chief exec of the Arts Council England, to try to get better representation for community brass bands and more financial awards, included the following points from the BFBB. The first was that the
	BFBB will endeavour to find ways to heighten awareness of the Arts Council of England Grants for the Arts Programme and has already had a meeting with Arts Council England Yorkshire, where some initial agreement has been made to develop strategies to address this objective.
	In the past, one of the main problems with Arts Council funding was the form that bands applying for an award had to fill in. They had to fill in a 96-page application form for a grant of 250. I am pleased to say that recentlyin May, I thinkthe Arts Council revised its application form to make it simpler; that is a step in the right direction.
	Secondly, the BFBB said:
	BFBB will forge links with Youth Music, a subsidiary organisation of ACE
	that is the Arts Council England
	at a National and Regional level and this is also being discussed with ACE Yorkshire.
	BFBB has also made initial contact with Making Music and plans to establish a relationship at a national level. BFBB has a seat on the Voluntary Arts Network...LINK committee together with Mr. Robin Osterley, CEO, Making Music.
	BFBB has already been involved in promoting the ACE 'Take it Away' scheme and will continue to do so. On this one I have to say that because of the high cost of some brass band instruments, in the region of 8 to 10,000
	that is for the big brass-band instruments
	it is still very difficult for musicians even to take out a loan, even if it is interest free.

Chris Ruane: Does my hon. Friend think that a large grant of, say, 100,000 should be provided to the BFBB, so that it can distribute minor grants to brass bands across the country?

Jeff Ennis: My hon. Friend has either read my speech or is reading my mind, because that is a point that I shall focus on shortly. The BFBB responded positively to all the suggestions made by the Minister, the chief exec of the Arts Council, the chief exec of the national lottery and others. The problem is that the BFBB needs much more support. I intend to have a meeting with the BFBB and Andy Carver, the chief exec of the Arts Council England, Yorkshire region, to discuss the matter further. Currently, the BFBB is basically a one-man band. It has a part-time development officer, and the rest of the organisation consists of volunteers. If we are asking the BFBB to do all the connection and liaison work between all the funding streams and the brass bands, it is incumbent on the Arts Council England to help to fund the BFBB adequately.

David Taylor: My hon. Friend mentioned the Grimethorpe Colliery band. The world champion Desford Colliery brass band is now based in my constituency. Does he agree that the BFBB might play a significant role in an area where there is stress and shortage, namely conductor training? The fine musicians of the future will be shaped and led by new conductors, who need to come into brass banding if we are to ensure that its future is as rich as its past.

Jeff Ennis: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and I would extend what he says to music tuition. Also, many leading brass band players do not stay with brass bands; they eventually go to philharmonic orchestras and become some of their leading musicians. We need to build on the links between brass bands and philharmonic orchestras, given that conductors who start off in brass bands progress to philharmonic orchestras.

Chris Ruane: Does my hon. Friend agree that brass bands provide a way for working-class people in working-class communities to make it, not just through the brass band movement but

David Taylor: Social cohesion.

Chris Ruane: Yes, my hon. Friend makes a valid point: brass bands provide social cohesion, but they are also a stepping stone enabling working-class people to make it right to the top.

Jeff Ennis: Once again, I think my hon. Friend has been reading my speech. He is majoring on a point that I shall come to shortly.
	I have been pointing the finger at the lack of funding coming from the Arts Council England. The difference between the amounts of money that brass bands draw down from the national lottery and from the Arts Council is a valid cause for concern. At our recent meeting with Peter Wanless, the new chief exec of the Big Lottery Fund, he told us that brass bands' applications for funding from the Big Lottery Fund are met with a success rate of about 50 per cent., which is a fairly good level of achievement.
	Last year, brass bands received just short of 110,000 from the national lottery, and this year, until the end of June, they have been granted almost 54,000. In addition to that, the national youth brass band of Great Britain has received 573,000 of lottery funding over the past five years through YouthMusic, and that figure increases year on year. The two main sources of funding from the national lottery are Awards for All, which most brass bands tap into, and the bigger pot of Reaching Communities, which Easington colliery brass band recently tapped into to the tune of about 100,000. The Arts Council needs to learn lessons from the funding that brass bands are drawing down from the Big Lottery Fund. It needs to make its process for putting in applications much simpler, like that of the national lottery.
	Youth brass band music is thriving throughout the United Kingdom. I recently had the opportunity to speak and present some of the prizes at the national youth brass band competition, which is held annually at the university of Manchester and took place in April this year. I was privileged to see more than 2,000 youngsters, mostly secondary school kids, playing brass band instruments to an extremely high standard to packed concert halls. Everybody had a fantastic time.

David Drew: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that Smithills sixth-form brass band has an extraordinary reputation; I have had the opportunity to see them twice myself. They very much represent the way many players are now coming through. That shows what one school can do, let alone the wider youth movement.

Jeff Ennis: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I have had the privilege of listening to the excellent West Lothian schools brass band from Scotland.
	That brings me to an interesting comparison between Scotland and England. Last year, the Scottish Arts Council gave 55,000 towards Scotland's youth brass band championships. Given that England is roughly 10 times the size of Scotland, one would think that the Arts Council England would give the national youth brass band championships in England a grant of about 500,000, but last year it gave the paltry sum of 25,000less than half what the Scottish Arts Council gave for its youth brass band championships.

Chris Ruane: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way yet again. Can I pick his brains and ask whether he has any comparable figures for Wales?

Jeff Ennis: I am afraid not, but I can tell my hon. Friend that the Cory band in south Wales are the European champions because they recently beat the Grimethorpe Colliery band to win the European championships in Stavanger. I congratulate Cory. Grimethorpe won the national brass band championships again this year at the Royal Albert hall and will therefore represent England in next year's European finals. There are some excellent brass bands not only in south Wales but in north Wales, with the silver brass band in Rhyl.
	I am concerned about the need for greater co-operation between Government Departments across all disciplines, but particularly music. I know that that is happening. I congratulate the Minister on the co-operation that is taking place between her Department and the Department for Children, Schools and Families. In Barnsley, for example, we are benefiting to the tune of just over 1 million in funding from the Department for Children, Schools and Families, through an initiative it has for teaching music that allows children to learn a musical instrument at key stage 2.
	The Government will invest hundreds of millions of pounds in music education over the next three years. The target area is key stage 2the top juniors in year 6. The aim is that every child at key stage 2 should learn a musical instrument or receive specialist musical tuition for one year free of charge. That will be done by teaching the playing of instruments to all key stage 2 classes as part of the wider opportunities project. In Barnsley last year, 50 per cent. of all junior schools benefited from the project, and by 2009 every primary and junior school in Barnsley will benefit from it. By 2009, every year 6 child in Barnsley will have a year to a learn to play a musical instrument.

David Taylor: My hon. Friend has centred the debate on the contribution that can be made by the Arts Council, the lottery funds and so on, but will he pay tribute to the way many private firms have picked up on providing the sponsorship that was once routinely provided by the National Coal Board? I have in mind organisations in my constituency such as Ibstock Brick, and the Ibstock Brick Brass, and Leicestershire Co-op, with the Leicestershire Co-op band. They are doing a great deal to bridge the gap, but it is still widening, not least because the young people getting involved need uniforms and instruments that present funding sources are unable to supply.

Jeff Ennis: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I have focused on community brass bands, but in the second half of my speech I want to focus on the elite brass bands, and the very issue that my hon. Friend has highlighted. The fact is that we do not have the staple industries any more. The coal industry supported Grimethorpe Colliery band and the textile industry supported the Black Dyke Mills band. Those industries have collapsed and the elite brass bands need corporate sponsorship from the private sector rather than the public sector.
	To finish the point about co-operation between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Children, Schools and Families, I should add that excellent work will be going on in Barnsley schools over the next couple of years, but when pupils leave school, they will need a strong infrastructure of community music making. Brass bands offer a unique opportunity to provide that, and it should be invested in so that they are ready for the influx of players and a public who show a revitalised interest in amateur music making. That is very much an example of best practice, which I hope the Minister will focus on in her closing remarks.
	I now come to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor): we need to make progress on the situation of the elite brass bands. I would like to focus on bands such as the Grimethorpe Colliery band, the Black Dyke Mills band and the Cory band. There are between 10 and a dozen top elite bands in the United Kingdom. They are not just some of the best brass bands in the world; they are the best brass bands in the world, and long may that continue. The main problem is the way in which the Arts Council England funds its regularly funded organisationsthe RFOs. The Arts Council has just short of 900 RFOs, such as English National Opera, the Northern Ballet, the Royal Shakespeare Company and the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra. We can all think of examples of the so-called elite RFOs. There are nearly 900 of them, and they are guaranteed, over the next three years, more than half the funding provided in the total Arts Council England budget. Just over half a billion pounds is going to those organisations in the next three yearsbut there is not one elite brass band among those 900 organisations. The Arts Council has appointed 80 new RFOs and not one is a brass band. That is a major concern for me.
	My point about the elite brass bands is probably best articulated through a couple of examples that have been brought to my attention. When I first mentioned brass band funding in the autumn, I received an e-mail from John Myles, the chairman of the YBS band. It used to be called the Yorkshire Building Society band when it was sponsored by that organisation. The building society no longer sponsors it, so it goes under the name YBS band. It is one of the elite bands. The e-mail says:
	Dear Mr. Ennis,
	I write as Chairman of YBS Brass Band to congratulate you in bringing to the public notice the disparity in funding between certain aspects of the Arts and in particular the plight of Brass Bands in general. I saw your contribution to the Politics Show on my return from Italy where YBS Band performed by invitation at the Murano Music Festival.
	Since YBS lost its major sponsor some four years ago the band has not been able to secure any other funding. While funds are low our accounts are fortunately in the black but it is a hand-to-mouth existence with a reliance on concert revenue paying for competition entry, transport and accommodation. The objective is at least two fee earning engagements a month which off sets some competition expenditurethe next one being the National Brass Band Championships at the Royal Albert Hall on 20th October.
	which Grimethorpe won. The e-mail continues:
	With you raising the profile now may be a good time for me to reapply to the Arts Council England to determine if any funding may be available but before doing so I thought I would seek advice from you in the first instance. My attempt last year to secure funding from ACE following a meeting at their regional office in Dewsbury was unsuccessful so any information, contact name or advice which you can offer me would be appreciated.
	I received the follow-up e-mail about six weeks later:
	Hello Jeff,
	I had a meeting last week with Andrew Herbert at ACE in Dewsbury. Quite helpful but I think it's a case of us making an application for funding for something specific rather than there being a 'pot' for Brass Bands. However, when you learn that Opera North get 9 million+, Northern Ballet get 8 million+ and Jazz Yorkshire get 500k+ you'd think there would be room for manoeuvre.
	That is the position in which the elite brass bands find themselves.
	I have been more personally involved in the second example, which is of securing funding for my brass bandGrimethorpe Colliery band. We are all aware of the history of the elite brass bands, which were founded in the staple industries of the areas. It was a way for the textile owners or the pit owners to show respect for their communities. In those days, the local mine owner provided everythingfor example, the football and playing facilities. In Grimethorpe we also have an excellent first aid team; last year the Grimethorpe colliery first aid team reached the world championships in Australia. Everything surrounded the pit. It was exactly the same in the textile villages, such as where the Black Dyke Mills band is from. It showed the culture of the place and the respect that people had for their communities.
	In the old days, the players from the Grimethorpe Colliery band worked down the pit. I say that they worked down the pit: they were on the colliery books, but they probably did about two or three shifts a year. The rest of the time, they were crafting their expertise in music, and they were fantastic musicians.
	Times have changed, and only one member of Grimethorpe Colliery band still lives in Grimethorpe. Musicians come from all over the country for the privilege of playing in Grimethorpe Colliery band. One bandsman travels twice a week, every week, from Essex to rehearse in Grimethorpe because he feels proud and privileged to play for a such a band.
	After the pits closed, we originally got sponsorship from UK Coal, of about 150,000 a year, but that then dried up. We now get funding from Powerfuel, which is a small coal-operating company owned by Richard Budge.
	A few years ago, however, Grimethorpe went through a funding crisis, so I had to write to all the big companies and building societies in Yorkshire, including the Yorkshire building society, Halifax, the Barnsley building society, Asda, Morrisons and so on, to see whether I could get some money. I managed to get 15,000 from HBOSHalifax Bank of Scotlandand 5,000 from Asda. They were the only two big Yorkshire companies that responded.
	I pay tribute to the corporate social responsibility that those national and international organisations have shown to my community, but I should not have to be sending begging letters to big companies in Yorkshire for the best brass band in the world. The Arts Council has one third of a billion pounds a year to give out to musical companies and what have you, but Grimethorpe has not been able to tap into a penny of it. Grimethorpe got a small grant from the national lottery about 10 years ago, and I have already mentioned this year's experience, when the band applied to the Arts Council for expenses to travel to the Kent brass band festival, but was told that it was too late.
	I have been criticised in the past for making comparisons and trying to make this a class issuethat is, of working class against middle class, which it is notor the high arts against brass bands and all that. I have been criticised for comparing brass bands to orchestras and the ballet, so let me put that to one side. I think that brass bands can be compared to orchestras, so recently I tabled the following question, to which the Minister will know the response:
	To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much funding the (a) Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, (b) Hall Orchestra and (c) City of Birmingham Orchestra has received from Arts Council England in each of the last five years.[ Official Report, 16 July 2008; Vol. 479, c. 438W.]
	In the past five years, the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra received 3.8 million, the Hall concerts society received 9.589 million and the City of Birmingham symphony orchestra received 9.6 million.
	Grimethorpe Colliery band and the Black Dyke Mills band both received zero pounds. That is my main point tonight. That is a national scandal. We have bands of the likes of Grimethorpe Colliery band, which played at the Proms last year, with the Black Dyke Mills band on different nights. They have played at Carnegie hall and the Sydney opera house; they are world famous. Indeed, only last week I was talking to an Australian member of the New South Wales assembly, Noreen Hay, who represents Wollongong. She was telling me what a great band she had in the Wollongong United Mine Workers band, and about how proud she was to have a band like that in New South Wales. When I told her that I was from Grimethorpefrom Brassed Off countryshe could not believe it. She was really pleased to meet me. It was fantastic.

David Taylor: Part of the renaissance in brass bands that has occurred was of course triggered by the film Brassed Off, to which my hon. Friend has referred. Does he agree that the major national broadcasting organisations ought to give more air time to brass bands, to sustain the support that we know is out there? People will not necessarily be able to see Ewan McGregor and Tara Fitzgerald playing the solo in Rodrigo's Concierto de Aranjuez, but there is nevertheless an audience out there waiting for that type of broadcasting. We can build public support, but only if those organisations play their part.

Jeff Ennis: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I do not know whether hon. Members remember, but when we had the Commonwealth games in Manchester, a brass band played at the opening or closing ceremonyI forget which. To be fair to the Minister, she has suggested that we ought to try to incorporate a brass band into the 2012 Olympics, in either the opening or the closing ceremony. When she made that suggestion, the representatives from the brass bands thought that she could walk on water, for want of a better expression. She has shown her commitment to brass bands and I commend her for that.
	The new chief executive of the Arts Council is a great guy. He is a Geordie, and he is fully behind my campaign. The problem is that the funding package from the Arts Council for the regularly funded organisations has now been agreed for the next three years. On paper, that means that no brass band can tap into that funding until 2011. The new chief exec of the Arts Council feels that his hands are slightly tied by this.
	 It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Alan Campbell.]

Jeff Ennis: The chief exec of the Arts Council feels that his hands are tied because of the funding package. We all know why the Government introduced three-year funding packages for the voluntary sector and for other organisations. They did so because it makes sense, because people need to know where they stand. I support the principle of three-year funding packages, but the elite brass bands have now been excluded from Arts Council funding and cast outside the door for the next three years. That is an issue that the Minister needs to address, and I would like her to have an urgent meeting with the new chief executive of the Arts Council during the summer recess, to see whether there are any ways and means of getting round this technicality. I believe that this issue must be addressed, and that is one of the reasons why I recently set up the all-party group on brass bands that I mentioned earlier. I know that it will be a very popular group.
	When this issue was covered on The Politics Show on BBC2 a couple of months ago, Sir John Tusa, the chair of the University of the Arts, was vociferous in his support of my campaign. He said that it ticked all the right Government boxes, as one of my hon. Friends has already said. It ticks the boxes marked social cohesion, outreach, widening participation in higher education, youth involvement and social inclusion. Even Sir John Tusa, who is recognised as one of the high arts prima donnasfor want of a better expressionis supportive of my campaign.
	I can tell the Minister that the other members of the all-party group and I will be keeping a close eye on developments between her and the Arts Council over the summer. I look forward to hearing her response to the many points that I have raised tonight.

David Drew: I shall be brief, partly because I took up the Minister's time last Monday, when we had a lovely debate on listed buildingsalthough I know that Adjournment debates on Mondays tend to get more time. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis). I know how passionately he feels about this subject, and he has demonstrated that again tonight.
	Besides being the centre of the universe for listed buildings, Stroud also has some notoriety for brass bands. We have had a brass band festival for the past 40 years or more, set up by my dear, late lamented friend, Ossie Stephens. His comrade in arms, Bill Bruntsadly, he is no longer with us eitherwas the most amusing compre. He could bring tears to the eyes, even at the most dry-as-dust concert. We have many people who spend their time keeping the festival going. I should like to mention in passing Trevor Pickens, who is currently the honorary president of the Stroud brass band festival, and Ken Gracie, who is involved in many things.
	I hope that the Minister will reflect on the fact that these people are all volunteers. They have spent many hours bringing the best bands to Stroud over the years. They steward, they host, they collect the tickets and they sell the ice creams. They make the festival a wonderful occasion. Every month during the winter, we get bands to perform. Sometimes, we get world-famous bands such as Grimethorpealthough we have not had the Black Dyke Mills band for a long timeand the Yorkshire colliery bands.
	We also have up-and-coming bands, and I have to declare a personal interest at this point. Until recently, my son Christopher and my daughter Esther played euphonium and tenor horn in the Nailsworth silver band. We also have the Chalford band, which is very good. My in-laws go all over the countryindeed, all over Europe. They are called Brian and Sheila Baker; when I see them on Thursday, I hope I shall get their commendation. What my hon. Friend says is absolutely true: such people go everywhere; they support these activities, and it is all made possible by volunteering.
	Let me make a couple of points that have not been brought out so far. First, there are also military bands. Stroud tends to get a military band at least once every other season. It is part of the comradeship of the military to have marching bands and performing bands, which I would not like to lose. Having younger players is important. I have talked to people who have been involved with the festival for a long time, and they are all getting older. They are worrying about where the new generation of players and activists, as well as the people who do the organising, are going to come from. That is why we need some pump-priming finance.
	We used to get quite good sponsorship at the local level, but it has begun to dry up, as the organisers keep going to the same people. As my hon. Friend rightly says, funding a band with new instruments is expensive, and the cost of travel is escalating. When these people involved in brass bands come to Stroud, they do not get back to their part of the north until the very early hours of the morning. That shows their huge dedication. World-class instrumentalists and conductors can be giving up their time, which is why we ask for some fairness and some recognition of the importance of these social institutions. We are talking about wonderful examples of the best of British culture. That is why brass bands are so important to all of us, even in the outposts. We have the band Flowers in Cheltenham, which is our claim to fame in the top 20; we always get one band there, but we cannot compete with the north. The north always comes to us.

David Taylor: One source of funding for the brass band movement not yet referred to is local authorities, which are well aware of the promotional potential of such bands for their own districts and counties. It helps them to be associated with a successful brass band. Let us at least recognise that, with all the pressures they face, local authorities do quite a lot in that regard.

David Drew: That has been absolutely true of Stroud district council for a long time; I am sure it still provides sponsorship and help for events in our main venue, the Subscription Rooms. It gives financial help and help in kind.
	Let me make a final plea to my right hon. Friend the Minister, who has some time to respond. This issue is greatly underestimated. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough said, we are not trying to smash ballet or other cultural expressions; we are not saying that brass bands deserve parity. All we want is a seat at the table, which is not unreasonable in view of the millions of people who find enjoyment in this activity. Brass bands are not passing away slowly; they are very much alive, but they are facing financial problems, as it is expensive to run a brass band. The very best have to stay at the top.
	Pleasingly, this issue also brings Europe together. Many bands are developing in parts of the world such as the new Europe, which pride themselves on their abilitybut they look to Britain as the home country, so to speak, so it is wrong that we find it so difficult to fund our bands properly. I hope that there will be some good news, and that we will recognise properly how important brass bands are to this country's culture.

Margaret Hodge: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) on securing this debate, particularly so close to the summer recess, and providing us with the opportunity to talk about this really important subject. I would also like to congratulate Grimethorpe Colliery band on becoming top of the league for the second year running and winning the English national brass band competition. I thank other hon. Friends for participating in this evening's debate: my hon. Friends the Members for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), for Hastings and Rye (Michael Jabez Foster) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew).

Jeff Ennis: Every Member who has spoken in the debateand I thank my hon. Friends for contributingrepresents a different region of the country, or a different country in the case of Wales. Does that not underline the fact that brass bands represent every community and region of the country?

Margaret Hodge: I agree. They are essentially British, and symbolise British history and culture, and are therefore important.
	My hon. Friend has led a long and honourable campaign on behalf of brass bands. I have had meetings with him, and he has gained a lot of publicity and support on the issues that he has raised. When we have had discussions, I hope that he has had the impression that he is at least heard with a friendly ear, even if I cannot always deliver for him. That ear is friendly because I am a passionate believer in the power of music, in all its genres and forms, to inspire and transform lives. I, too, enjoy brass bands and brass band music, and recognise that it can foster community spirit and strengthen neighbourhood relationships.
	The debate has brought to public attention the importance of brass bands to our musical heritage and to the lives of individuals and communities across the country. The importance of music has been raised by a number of Members who have contributed to the debate. Music lifts my soul and enriches my spirit in a way that other art forms do not. Those of us who are committed to music, of whatever form, find that to be the case.
	Music can also bring people together, because they must practise and play together in a group, especially in bands and orchestras. That is a powerful element. Young people can learn a variety of skills from participating in music. They learn to work in a team, which is hugely important in later life. They learn to understand patterns and shapes, which is important in developing basic literacy and numeracy skills. They learn to develop creativity, which we all talk about as an important skill for survival in the increasingly competitive global economy. Therefore, it is hugely important that music should form a part of children's and young people's education. Brass bands in particular can become a symbol of community identity and pride, which is very important for social cohesion.
	Brass bands have a history and distinctiveness that cannot but conjure up a sense of Britishness the moment that they are heard. Whether it is the Salvation Army playing in a shopping centre at Christmas, a Sunday afternoon bandstand performance in a public park, or a young person's concert band playing at a school open day, the sound is utterly unique and finds its most powerful and, for me, emotive expression in the colliery bands, whose plight in the late '80s was so movingly expressed, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire has said, in the film, Brassed Off. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough kindly gave me another DVD copy of Brassed Off the last time we met, and I have enjoyed watching it. It is a very good film.

Michael Jabez Foster: My right hon. Friend is diplomatic in the way that she describes the importance of music in all its forms. But is it not true that brass bands are important because people do not have to be posh to take part in a brass band, whereas in many other forms of music, whether rightly or wrongly, people feel inhibited and excluded?

Margaret Hodge: Actually, I do not agree, because I am a passionate supporter of music. I am very pleased that the Government have been able to fund a pilot project similar to El Sistema in Venezuela. One of its orchestras also played at last year's Proms. The Government in Venezuela, at national, federal or regional level, fund music for street kids, paying for musical instruments for children who are poverty-stricken and have no opportunities of any kind. Children with very little support from their parents, very low aspirations, no money and no access to any material goods are expected to engage in four hours of solid practice every day, and have become so wonderfully proficient that they perform in international concerts such as the Proms. Indeed, theirs was probably one of the most successful performances that we heard at the Proms last year.

David Taylor: Notwithstanding what the Minister has just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Michael Jabez Foster), we have moved on since the days when the then Member for Hayes and HarlingtonMr. Terry Dicks, a working-class Torydescribed opera as fat Italians in tights. Working-class people enjoy opera and ballet as much as any other members of society. However, they are not necessarily given the access to opera and ballet, and the encouragement to participate, that constitute a routine part of the way in which brass bands operate.

Margaret Hodge: I could wax lyrical about opera as well. In Italy, it is a very working-class pursuit. Indeed, it is enjoyed by all classes and cultures. My mission, ambition and passion are to ensure that we spread the love of music in all its genres and forms to all people. That is why I am so pleased that the Governmentthrough the Department for Children, Schools and Families, which has rather more money than the Department for Culture, Media and Sporthave invested more than 330 million in music education, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough. That is of prime importance. It means that every primary school child will be able to have at least one year's tuition in an orchestral instrument, which is fantastically important.
	In my constituency, which was lucky enough to benefit from the early phase of the roll-out of the programme to which I referred, I went to hear a group of about 100 eight and nine-year-olds play. Music was not a natural part of their culture and upbringing, and they had undergone a year of tuition for perhaps an hour and a half or two hours a week. It was really to heartening to see them bounce around, playing their instruments in time in a big group. I know that 50 per cent. of the children involved in the first year of that experiment have chosen to continue learning their instruments in the second and third years. We must do more to spread the fantastic pleasure that music can bring to many more people, and that includes the pleasure of brass bands. I do not exclude brass bands, but I do not want them to be seen as the only way in which we can engage children from all communities and backgrounds in music.
	I am proud of what the Labour Government have done for the arts over the last 10 or 11 years. When we first came to office the arts were terribly underfunded, but we have managed to increase funding by 73 per cent. in real terms, and even in the latest tight fiscal spending round we managed to obtain a real-terms increase of 50 million3.3 per cent.for the Arts Council. As a result the arts are now flourishing, and we are considered worldwide to have some of the most excellent orchestras, theatre companies, dance companies and fine arts institutions. We should be proud of that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough is right that the Arts Council funds almost 900 regularly funded organisations. He is also right that that funding is for three years. There is a reason for that, which I hope he appreciates. Many of these organisations are quite fragile. It is easy to pick the one or two big nationals, but many of them are very local, very innovative and very much at the cutting edge. As they are fragile, if we were not to give them that three-year security in funding, they might not be able to undertake the innovation that puts them at the cutting edge, and that is the basis of so much of the creativity and excellence that we in the UK enjoy today. While I accept that it is sad that no elite brass band is funded in this round, I hope my hon. Friend will accept that we were right to go for the three-year funding pattern.
	I am sure Arts Council representatives will be listening to this debate, but it is very important that we maintain the arm's length principle in the way in which we fund arts in this country. We allocate the money to a non-governmental body, and it is for it to determine, within the broad parameters and framework we set it, which organisations to fund. I can give a very good reason for that. The Leader of the Opposition recently went to a lunch with representatives of the Arts Council at which he is purported to have said that he hoped it was not funding

Mr. Speaker: Order. If there is to be a criticism of any Member, the convention is to give warning of that. Therefore, this matter might instead be raised in a private conversation in the Tea Room.

Margaret Hodge: Thank you for drawing that to my attention, Mr. Speaker. I will not pursue that remark, but what I will say is that it is very important that there is no political interference in Arts Council decisions.

Jeff Ennis: As I expected, the Minister has given an excellent response so far, picking out all the main points I made. However, is it not the case that the Arts Council has just agreed to fund an extra 80 new regularly funded organisations but not one of them is a brass band? I agree with the arm's length point, and I also agree with the three-year funding package, but when that leads to the exclusion for three years of a major British art formbecause that is what we are talking aboutthat is a serious omission, and it is an omission that needs to be addressed before 2011.

Margaret Hodge: I hear what my hon. Friend says, and no doubt Arts Council representatives will hear it, too. Let me just tell him something that might surprise him, however. Recently, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, working together with the Arts Council, undertook a review of the entire amateur and voluntary sector in the arts, and we have published a report called Our Creative Talent. It emerged that there are currently almost 50,000 voluntary groups in the artsfrom bands, brass bands and orchestras to book clubs, and from lace-making to dance clubsand there are 5.9 million members of those groups, and an additional 3.5 million volunteers who are either extras or helpers. That is a huge number of peoplemore than 9.4 millionwho are engaged in one way or another in voluntary or amateur arts activities.
	In the course of that report, the question arose of where these organisations most sought help, and the answer was interesting. It was not so much direct funding that organisations wanted; it was much more support in finding premises. This is where we come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire. I accept the point about elite brass bands, but in general, we need local authorities to assist in ensuring that the conditions exist where these thousands and thousands of voluntary arts organisations, all of which bring joy to lots of people's hearts and contribute massively to the well-being of communities, can prosper. Part of that relates to premises and part relates to advice; it is about simple things such as health and safety advice, and ensuring that if children are engaged in these activities, the necessary permissions and child protection issues are covered, because the organisations involved demand such things.
	I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire mentioned local authorities, because I am convinced that as well as the Arts Council playing its role, local authorities should see that these organisations are at the heart of their communities. To the extent that local authorities are therefore responsible for place making, they should invest in those organisations.
	The new programme that we have launched together with the Department for Children, Schools and Familiesthe Find your talent programmeis another innovation that I hope will help brass bands to find the next generation of talented young people who can grow up to play, in one way or another, in community and amateur brass bands, bringing joy to their communities. Under the Find your talent scheme, we hope that every childcertainly those in the 10 pilot areaswill have access to between two and five hours of culture a week, equivalent to what more than 80 per cent. of children now enjoy in relation to sport. That is a wide menu of potential activities, including not only going to concerts, but participating in learning instruments, and not only going to theatres, but participating in dramatic activities in the schools. If the pilots, which are located all over the countrythere are pilots in Leeds, Bolton, Liverpool, Tyneside, Telford and Wrekin, Folkestone and Tower Hamletsare successful and we can prove their worth, I hope that the Chancellor will consider funding this programme, so that we can roll it out across the country.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough discussed the funding that the Arts Council gives brass bands. The YouthMusic funding is important, because through the YouthMusic arm of the Arts Council, the National Youth Brass Band of Great Britain receives nearly 125,000 a year. I should put on the record the fact that this year, a former member of that band became the youngest ever winner of the BBC's Young Musician of the Year, and we should all applaud that. My hon. Friend rightly said that only 16 applications were made under the grants for the arts programmeperhaps he will work with others to secure more of which seven were successful, which is about the success rate for all applications that are made under the scheme.
	I have talked to my hon. Friend before about the role of regional development agencies, and I am pleased to hear that he has had discussions with Yorkshire's RDA since we met. I am convinced that the Arts Council could do morethat would be a decision for it to takebut both local authorities and regional authorities must also do their part in ensuring that this very important community activity is sustained.
	My hon. Friend was kind enough to mention the fact that 2012 gives us an enormous opportunity to blow the trumpetor play whatever instrument one choosesof the brass band. The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic GamesLOCOGis responsible for developing the opening and closing ceremonies for 2012, not the Government. He will be delighted to hear that at every meeting I have with LOCOG, I say, Have you got a brass band in yet?. I think that doing so would be one of the very symbolic ways in which we could celebrate the greatness of Britain during the great year of the 2012 Olympics, and I hope that he will join me in campaigning for that, so that we can put brass bands at the heart of our communities and at the heart of Britain.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.